back to article Introducing 'freedom gas' – a bit like the 2003 deep-fried potato variety, only even worse for you

Whether it's Puff Daddy to P Diddy, Sci Fi to Syfy or French fries to freedom fries, the US is the undisputed king of dubious rebranding exercises. Now America has once again hitched its horse to the strategy boutique. Introducing "freedom gas" – like our much-loved deep-fried potatoes, only even worse for you. I'm 12, what …

  1. DavCrav Silver badge

    "which produces the stinky flammable stuff"

    Methane is odourless.

    1. John H Woods

      *pure*

      methane is odourless but it does tend to pick up smellies. And obviously they deliberately scent it (with ethanethiol, iirc) for safety reasons.

      1. Ugotta B. Kiddingme

        Re: *pure*

        interesting. I always thought it was Methanethiol but perhaps not. In fact, it largely depends upon the information source. Some say definitely methanethiol, aka methyl mercaptan. Others just say mercaptan, which could mean ethyl or methyl or some other variant like t-butyl mercaptan. One source says thiophane. And one or two flat out say NOT methyl but don't specify what IS added. Strange.

        1. keith_w
          Mushroom

          Re: *pure*

          Does it matter which mercaptan as long as 1) you can detect it's presence nasally 2) it is an unpleasant odour you wish to be rid off with all possible haste and 3) it doesn't poison you? Icon, to indicate the undetected presence of large accumulations of natural gas in the appropriate ratio to air.

        2. Phil W

          Re: *pure*

          It's Brussels sprouts.

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      the stinky gasses generally contain sulfur, i.e. H2S, and any 'thi-ol' compound which has an S instead of an O in forming an alcohol...

    3. Mandoscottie

      mine aint after a haggis roll ;)

    4. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

      Surely it emanates from liberty cabbage?

    5. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      "Methane is odourless"

      For the vast vast majority of people, it has an odor due to treatment.

      C.

      1. FozzyBear Silver badge
        Headmaster

        Re: "Methane is odourless"

        You do have to admit that your regular El Reg reader is not a "vast majority of people".

        1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

          Re: "Methane is odourless"

          your regular El Reg reader is not a "vast majority of people"

          No - we've generally put a larger proportion of our skill points into pedantry than most people..

          1. Cederic Bronze badge

            Re: "Methane is odourless"

            Nah, pedantry is a derivative stat based on a function of intelligence over emotional intelligence.

          2. ecofeco Silver badge

            Re: "Methane is odourless"

            *snerk*

        2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: "Methane is odourless"

          You do have to admit that your regular El Reg reader is not a "vast majority of people".

          I'm a vast majority of people, and so are my wife.

    6. David Shaw

      "Freedom Gas"

      obviously I took that chemical discussion of freedom gas to be tounge-in-cheek, but what if the DoE was somehow referring in doublespeak to something scary and elemental?

      https://off-guardian.org/2019/05/30/watch-opcw-leak-explained/

      nice video, thread-jack obviously, but for some reason the mention of historic Freedom Fries sent me off to read Robert Fisk, Peter Hitchens and other respectable journos. (opcw is in den haag, next to europol & the new zealand embassy, they have confirmed the leaked document)

      back to merriment....

  2. b0llchit
    Pint

    Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

    > Surely we'll wake up from this nightmare in 3... 2...

    No, its the matrix and you have received a blue pill. Therefore, no emissions are nor can be of any consequence. Its all virtual CO2 causing virtual warming in a virtual environment. It is all being used to generate real electricity for our robotic overlords to herd the slaves. Please stay with the program.

    /s

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

      what nightmare are we waking up from?

      Please explain in layman's terms [in a manner that's possible to actually discuss, we all know how to use google] why it is that CO2 is bad for the planet, and why the USA needs to reduce its CO2 output more than countries like China?

      Kthnx. I'll be ready with my infrared absorption spectrum curves and some physics facts regarding the solubility of gas in water vs temperature to rebut it all, including ice core measurements and a nice 10,000 year temperature chart available on wikipedia. [but those things are google-able as well, so I'm more inclined at this point to just mention them and let people decide if they wanna go for it]

      But yeah, discussibility being the point here, ANYone can throw links the way a bible thumper throws scripture references, and all it does is make the link-thrower smug and self-satisfied. If you've ever been on the receiving end of a "Hezekiah 1:1" argument from a religious person then you'll see the direct comparison.

      1. intrigid

        Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

        Climate alarmists do have an overwhelming resemblance to people who say the apocalypse is coming on xx/xx/xxxx date and therefore we need to embrace Jesus Christ.

        1. raving angry loony

          Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

          re: climate alarmists.

          The difference, which I would consider to be important enough to make your argument just another batch of bullshit from the head-in-the-sand nothing-is-wrong denialists, is that climate "alarmists" are backed by some fairly good science. Unlike the Jesus apocalypse folks.

          Oh, and for what it's worth, it's not "global warming". It's "catastrophic global climate change". Some areas will get colder, some hotter, overall the extremes will be more extreme, only on average will the planet get hotter. But it'll be a much more unpleasant planet to be on overall. Thanks in no small part to a core of people like you, mostly in power but some just being ignorant short-sighted idiots, who keep trying to belittle the problem because actually DOING something about it (and, in my opinion, it's too late now anyway) would impact their short-term profits, and those of their friends.

          1. intrigid

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            While there is a difference in the academic influence of climate alarmists and bible thumpers, there is a striking similarity in their overall track record of successful predictions.

            1. Geoffrey W Silver badge

              Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

              No there isn't. Rapture predictors have a 100% failure rate. What will it take for you to say "Oh, OK, perhaps the climate is changing for the worse"? A catastrophic event resulting in the collapse of civilisation? You are suffering from Freedom Brain!

              1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
                Mushroom

                @ Geoffery Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                No there isn't. Rapture predictors have a 100% failure rate.

                How do you know? So far it hasn't happened yet.

                And to your point... those who have predicted rapture to have occurred have the same track record as to those predicting the climate changes.

                But to blow your mind... (hence the fire ball)

                How do you know that it didn't happen already and this is really hell?

                1. veti Silver badge

                  Re: @ Geoffery Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  Many, many people have tried to predict the precise time of the Rapture. To date, all of them have been wrong. And not just "wrong" in the sense of being out by a few hours or days or years because of some imperfections in their data, but in the sense of their entire argument being based wholly on fallacies.

                  Of course it's possible that one day someone may get it right, but at the moment they have a 100% failure rate in the same way as humans have a 100% mortality rate. There are people who have not yet died, so technically that rate isn't really 100% on a strict evidentiary basis, but most people are pretty confident of it.

                  1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

                    Re: @ Geoffery Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                    many people have tried to predict the precise time of the Rapture

                    Which mostly just proves that they don't understand the Bible - which specifically says that no-one knows when it is or can accurately predict exactly when it'll be..

                    They mostly tend to be fringe types who concentrate on whichever bits they can wrest to ensure that they keep control over their followers and ignore all that peace, tolerance and living quiet lives bits.

                    1. Kiwi Silver badge
                      Unhappy

                      Re: @ Geoffery Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                      They mostly tend to be fringe types who concentrate on whichever bits they can wrest to ensure that they keep control over their followers and ignore all that peace, tolerance and living quiet lives bits.

                      It's the followers of this who most concern me (for want of a more appropriate word than "concern" - it's not something that keeps me up at night).

                      I've seen one or two of these prediction videos on YT. Week later we're still here. Week after that almost exactly the same video is released with a few bits of text changed, and yet none of the followers seem to notice. Almost like the change of who we're at war with in 1984. How can they miss that these people have been "wrong"[1] 30 times in the last year?

                      [1] I say "wrong" in quotes because the people making the predictions aren't doing it for the sake of making predictions. They're doing it for the sake of the nice bit of revenue they can get from "christians" who haven't bothered to understand the Bible, or who insist on reading versions translated hundreds of years ago before significant changes to the English language, meaning the definition of many words has changed significantly. Those who make the predictions know what they're going, they're making money from the stupidity of people who won't spend a few minutes a day reading their Bible.

                  2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
                    Boffin

                    @veti Re: @ Geoffery Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                    Yes, and did you not recognize that many tried to predict the average temperature with models that were just as flawed? Hence the point that both have the same track record.

                    And in Rapture, even the dead shall rise from their graves. Or something like that.

                    Again I'm no expert on religion...

                    1. Kiwi Silver badge
                      Holmes

                      Re: @veti @ Geoffery Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                      Yes, and did you not recognize that many tried to predict the average temperature with models that were just as flawed? Hence the point that both have the same track record.

                      Not just the temperatures. Also note the sea level rises, where Gore et al were saying we'd get massive rises in "just a few years", "unless we take drastic action NOW!!!1!!!1!1!!!11!!1!!!!1111!!!!1!!1!!!"

                      Lower Hutt is still above water, as is Wellington (or maybe my calendar is wrong and it's not 2015 yet?) Petone Wharf, built in 1907 is still the same height above MSL as it was in 1907 - same for many other wharves around NZ older than 100 years.

                      Some places are sinking - that happens with erosion and also has been known to happen with all a sorts of island nations over the centuries. Other places are rising as geological forces cause some areas to move up and others to move down.

                      Remind me.. Mr Gore - so fearful of catastrophic sea level rises within a few short years.. What sort of land area does he own these days? If he lives in or owns land in any coastal areas that would suggest he doesn't believe what he was saying. I wonder if he lives in a small house which is environmentally friendly, or does he live in a place with a MASSIVE "carbon footprint" that would show he does not believe the lies that made him rich?. Nah, surely he lives in a tiny self-sufficient 0-carbon house with lots of trees around it that he's planted himself on what was once clear land, not a massive block of formerly forest land he's had cleared for a massive house that has a higher carbon footprint than the all the commentards combined?

                      CO2 is what plants live on. Plants are what meat lives on, and meat is what we live on. Remove CO2 from the atmosphere (or reduce it to the levels the climate fear mongers want)

                      Last week we had kids doing protest marches around the world. They stopped traffic, meaning massive amounts of extra carbon released into the atmosphere. It'll take years, if not decades, for the carbon levels to average out back to what they would've been if it wasn't for these marches. In one day those protesting for climate change did more damage than they'll be able to "undo" in their lifetime. But don't let that stop the scum promoting this garbage. The climate change fearmongers - the leaders of it anyway - are not interested in 'saving the planet', they're only interested in their wallets at the expense of everyone else. Just look at how Gore and the others live now if you have any doubts about their true motives.

                      </rant>

                2. Geoffrey W Silver badge

                  Re: @ Geoffery Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  I suppose Hell would explain a lot - Rising global facism, collapsing capitalism, President Trump, Prime Minister May! (!==Not), and a never-ending Brexit gobbling up conservative leaders and spitting out the bones to be squabbled over by primitive low level scavenger PM-wanna-be's. Sigh...will it be this way forever...?

              2. bombastic bob Silver badge
                Boffin

                Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                "Oh, OK, perhaps the climate is changing for the worse"?

                at least 70 years of conclusive data. That's about the same length of one of the major temperature cycles in the northern hemisphere, by the way.

                You know, the one that made 1900 cold, 1935 hot, 1970 cold, 2005 hot, etc. (see the pattern? Obvious to anyone without a bias)

                Then there's the 500 year cycle, you know, 1000 AD warm [hence GREENland got its name], 1500 warm [dunno about 1250, haven't seen any info on that really, but the vikings had trouble with cooling temperatures in Greenland and the Nova Scotia area shortly after they were discovered during a warm period], 1750 was VERY cold (Thames freezover, Valley Forge winter for G. Washington at around that time period] and 2000 of course, VERY warm

                That's TWO observable temperature cycles coinciding at around the year 2000. Is that NOT compelling enough? Well, I guess _YOU_ must be a NATURAL TEMPERATURE CYCLE "denier" because THAT evidence goes back THOUSANDS of years and is INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS to even the most CASUAL observer, as long as that observer HAS A BRAIN and no pre-conceived notions to the contrary...

                1. Casca

                  Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  To bad you don't have a brain...What they are saying is that humans make the cycles worse not that they don't exist.

                  And if you could remove the shift from your keyboard we all would be grateful.

                  1. Jedit
                    Facepalm

                    "if you could remove the shift from your keyboard we all would be grateful"

                    Not as grateful as we'd be if he removed his fingers from it.

                2. Hans 1 Silver badge
                  Holmes

                  Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/400000-years-of-carbon-dioxide

                3. Patrician

                  Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  Nobody has suggested that those cycles don't exist, but that human activity is increasing the volatility of those cycles by the re-introduction of CO2 that was previously locked away in coal and oil deposits.

                  CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is a fact; it reduces the amount of infrared that is re-radiated from the Earths surface, causing the atmosphere to warm up.

                  1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

                    Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                    CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is a fact

                    And if you need real proof of that, just look at Venus. 2 billion years ago it was pretty similar to earth, then runaway greenhouse effects meant it got warm. Very, very warm - hotter on average than Mercury.

                    But most climate change deniers probably still thenk that Venus is a tropical paradise with mermaids swimming around like early 20th century sci-fi imagined it to be.

                    1. Scott 1

                      Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                      We could make a mint on selling future cruise tickets to the Venusian paradise.

                    2. Stoneshop Silver badge

                      Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                      Venus is a tropical paradise with mermaids swimming around

                      Teflon mermaids with pressure-resistant skin.

                      So probably closely related to Vogons.

                      1. Aussie Doc
                        Alien

                        Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                        Oh no.

                        Does that mean more poetry?

                        Because we don't have a Vogon icon >>>>>>

                4. DJO Silver badge

                  Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  Well BOB you must be the expert so please answer one simple question:

                  Plainly we cannot add CO2 to the atmosphere for ever, so at what point does it become a problem?

                  (If you think there's no limit I'll find a chamber with 10% CO2, perhaps you'd like a visit)

                  Please back up your answer with peer-reviewed science.

                  You don't know do you so how can you say the point is not already passed.

                  Your entire thesis seems to rest on the (completely insane) assumption that 99.5% of climate scientists are in some strange global conspiracy while the remaining 0.5% who are financed by the oil companies can be fully trusted.

                  1. Kiwi Silver badge

                    Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                    Plainly we cannot add CO2 to the atmosphere for ever, so at what point does it become a problem?

                    I'll be happy with double what we have now. Most life seems to be quite capable of surviving quite a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now - in fact most life is designed for it to be higher.

                    And in case you've missed my earlier comments, I'm someone 'from the land' growing up in rural NZ. I grow as much of my own food as I can. I also collect my own water (large rainwater collection) to a) give me security of supply in times of shortage or earthquake (with a large enough quake it could be months before my suburb gets city-supplied water), b) lessen the pollutants going into the ocean (both by reducing run-off and reducing the treated (and thus chemical-laden) waste water) and c) reduce the load on the local stormwater system, which for the last 50-60 years have been prone to flooding (city expanded beyond the capacity of the drainage). I absolutely hate pollution, both where it contaminates the land and also puts bad stuff into the air.

                    But I don't consider CO2 to be pollution. I know it is food, and of fundamental importance.

                    I promote living in a way that lessens pollution - ie don't buy an electric car and dump your old car until 1) the grid that charges the EV is using renewables (or at least nukes) and 2) your old car is running badly enough that the EV will actually reduce pollution overall - if you dump a good car just to buy an EV then you're adding to the pollution by a substantial amount, much more than the EV will reduce in it's lifetime. Reduce energy wastage where you can - even if your city supplies power from 100% renewable energy, expanding energy use means new power stations, new transmission lines etc - all which adds to the pollution of the world rather than reducing it. Using less electricity helps offset the extra load of the new neighbours.

                    Reduce your waste and push for better food packaging and better local recycling. We should be able to do 100% recycling and landfills should be going bankrupt, but we have this screwed up idea about what is and isn't good handling of our waste. Dumping it in a hole in the ground, or filling up a previously pristine green valley is NOT a good way to handle waste.

                    And live well. Don't make yourself poor and go without just because of what the climate fear mongers say. Look at their leader, Al Gore - does he live in a green manner? No? So why should the rest of us?

                    Please back up your answer with peer-reviewed science.

                    You first thanks :)

                    The health of my land is very important

                5. jmch Silver badge

                  Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  That's 2 temperature cycles that should have peaked at 2000 and 2005... and yet, 14 years later the global average temperatures are still going up and up and up

                6. Schultz
                  Boffin

                  Let me try to address Mr. Bob and co.

                  You throw out grandiose statements about climate science being wrong, making wrong predictions, ignoring natural climate cycles... So as a scientist Le tme try to explain to you how science works:

                  (1) You try to collect as much data and understand as much as possible about the system you want to predict; that cound be the motion of the planets (nowadays widely accepted to be caused by the force of gravity), or the climate.

                  (2) You start building mathematical models that would explain you data and that could predict the future.

                  (3) You check if you model works by comparing your predictions to the predicted observations.

                  This scientific model is extraordinarily successful, as you might appreciate when looking around yourself and appreciating how much of this complex world we now understand, predict, and control.

                  Climate science is no different. You can find a lot of failed models (a lot of models tried and failed to predict the motions of the planets, too) but a lot of models are scarily accurate. Especially scary is that the influence of CO2 on our atmospheric temperature, predicted more than half a century ago based on a thermodynamic understanding how much energy enters and leaves the atmosphere, seems to lead to quite predictive models.

                  If you are interested in climate science, you can learn about it from scientists who spent a long career working on this issue - many scientists try hard to make their results accessible and understandable to the wider public. But alternatively, you can ignore the science and read/watch the news of your choice - just don't expect a deep understanding of you get all your scientific knowledge from second hand sources.

                  Let me finish by a question: is there any particular issue that would convince you about climate change? Maybe something grand, such as an ice-free arctis, or the melting of millenia old glaciers in the alps, the Rockies, in Norway,...? Or will you just retreat to the next ad-hoc explanation (those glaciers had it coming since the mammoths stopped grazing!)

                  1. Kiwi Silver badge
                    Holmes

                    Re: Let me try to address Mr. Bob and co.

                    Especially scary is that the influence of CO2 on our atmospheric temperature, predicted more than half a century ago based on a thermodynamic understanding how much energy enters and leaves the atmosphere, seems to lead to quite predictive models.

                    "Half a century ago" - you're calling this 'accurate'? When they were telling us we were about to enter an ice age and most (if not all) mankind would be wiped out?

                    Yes, very accurate that. Why, just today I had to clear a 3,000 mile deep snow drift just so I could let the cat out.

                    Let me finish by a question: is there any particular issue that would convince you about climate change?

                    The climate is in perpetual change. Whether or not we have an influence on it, and how much, is up for debate - my ancestors figured that out long ago when they cleared the trees in Australia and accidentally created a desert where once there was some pretty nice land.

                    What would convince me about the "imminent catastrophe" would be one of the many "predictions" being half right. So far they're worse than the "moon guy" and his earthquake predictions. Massive sea level rises? Not happened, sea levels are stagnant (of course that's because of 'Isostatic rebound', or so I am told...). Antartica ice-free? Nope. Seems the ice there is expanding ("Oh but that's due to climate change. We were wrong on the ice melting due to global warming, it's actually getting more ice due to global warming and more ice there proves how right we were!!!!"). Maybe some of the other predictions? Oh dear.. Not one.

                    In the Bible we're told that "If what a prophet says fails to happen, you can ignore the rest of what they say". Well, lets see if we have a reason to listen to the climate fear mongers? Not a single prediction even close to reality. The TVNZ weather man has a better chance of predicting the weather on a random date (with him neither knowing the date nor even the planet the prediction is for!) than these guys - and I don't think he's ever done a reasonably accurate forecast once.

                    What to do about things is another question. Perhaps we should go with wind power - where you tear up a lot of otherwise pristine ground, build massive concrete foundations that release huge amounts of CO2 (not that CO2 is a bad thing, in fact it's really good for the health of the planet especially while we're in such a CO2 drought!). There's the trucks to move the things to site, the creating of the roads (not always an issue but in some places they do a LOT of damage to the existing landscape). There's the backup generators (have to be ready to instantly provide power the moment a wind turbine stops). And the maintenance. And when the turbines fail and spread burning debris all over the countryside (not common I know, but a lot of pollution when it happens!). Wind turbines are unlikely to recover the 'cost' of building them. Then there's the reputed loss of bird life around them, and the stress the noises and flashing light/shadow cause to other animal life around the area. If you doubt it, spend a day near a wind turbine...

                    Much of the other stuff proposed to help 'tackle climate change' has been quite bad as well. Do you remember all the fuss about 'bio fuel'? Did you ever give thought to the massive deforestation that was going to be needed for that? But 'bio fuel' was going to save the world!

                    Worrying about climate change is one thing. Fucking up the planet doing stupid things to fight it is another - and thus far that is the road that has been chosen, destroy the planet in the name of saving it. Those who come up with these ideas should lead by example, spend the last moments of their lives in the same state they want for the rest of us.

                    If you claim to be scientist then do some damned science, or at least look at the math.

                    And yes, actually I do my best to reduce use, reduce waste, and live efficiently without polluting. The ground is very important to me - that's where I grow my veggies, and anything bad that gets onto my plot makes my food taste bad. I don't care about the source, pollution is pollution and I don't want it on my plants. The climate isn't an issue with me, not even remotely. What is an issue is the quality of the air, and how it affects what I want from life. Better air means better life - for myself and more importantly for those I love.

                    1. This post has been deleted by its author

                      1. Kiwi Silver badge
                        FAIL

                        Re: Let me try to address Mr. Bob and co.

                        Oh, so much in your post to jump up and down on...you're not worth the fucking effort. Educate yourself or !@#$ off.

                        I used to be very much pro-wind and extremely anti-Nuke. I mean I am a Kiwi for a start, and quite left-wing in most of my political views.

                        Someone once challenged me to 'do the math'.

                        I did. Now I am anti-wind and pro-nuke.

                        I did educate myself. Perhaps, rather than resorting to abusing someone or dismissing an argument because they quote something from a collection of books you dislike...

                        You claim that there's a lot to "jump up and down on" in my post, yet you don't even begin to answer one of them, aside from showing you know little to nothing about how much goes into making wind-turbines.

                        How much carbon is released during the manufacture of the turbine? To be fair, you can exclude stuff that wouldn't go into other types of generators. What about the roads to the site? The land clearing? Getting the transmission cables to the site? The transformers and switch gear?

                        How long is the life span of a wind turbine? What are the costs in decommissioning and replacing a wind turbine?

                        What is the damage caused when a turbine fails - which they are known to do in a quite spectacular fashion (although most fail in rather mundane ways, thankfully).

                        How much CO2 is released by the backup generators ready to produce power when the wind stops? Yes, they do exist sorry - you need to look into that some more if you have doubts (grid storage batteries could help alleviate this problem, but at what cost?)

                        And for a real education, spend some time close to a wind farm. Notice the noise, the vibration that soaks through the ground, the flashing of light and shadow. Think about what that sort of stuff does to people - who can rationalise it - and wonder at what it could well be doing to the wildlife. They're known to be very deadly to local bats, which are considered important for the local ecology. And see if you can find any bird life as well - I'd be very interested in that one myself (I suspect little to no birdlife will remain but I would be very happy to be proven wrong!)

                        Before you tell others to get educated, get a few clues yourself.

                  2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                    Re: Let me try to address Mr. Bob and co.

                    Climate science is no different. You can find a lot of failed models (a lot of models tried and failed to predict the motions of the planets, too) but a lot of models are scarily accurate. Especially scary is that the influence of CO2 on our atmospheric temperature, predicted more than half a century ago based on a thermodynamic understanding how much energy enters and leaves the atmosphere, seems to lead to quite predictive models.

                    I presume you're refering to orbital dynamics rather than climate models when you say 'scarily accurate'? If not, do you have any preferred models where reanalysis has shown a good fit with reality?

                    Otherwise, it's just technofetishism with a side order of appeals to authority. Many 'famous' climate scientists have famously got things wrong, eg Hansen and his US testimony. But that's science for you. Come up with a hypothesis, devise an experiment to test it, publish, suffer the slings and arrows from your peers.

                    For climate science, the basic hypothesis is very simple. CO2 molecules can absorb and re-radiate energy. That's quantifiable, either using simple experiments like Callendar, or just spectroscopy. That leaves you with CO2's 4 absorption/emmission bands. Most of those overlap with H2O, so H2O's the more dominant GHG.

                    Problem comes from modelling that behaviour, especially over planetary scale and many decades to come up with dire predictions for a hot summer in 2100, unless we give the 'renewables' lobby more money. Other problems come from simple timescales, ie reanalysis requires comparing predictions to reality, which requires reality to catch up. So comparing model predictions made for say, the last 20 years with temperature measurements.

                    Then there are challenges with basic temperature measurements, or lack thereof for large parts of the world.. Especially if those historical temperature measurements keep getting adjusted, because models predict the past was colder, therefore the measurements must be wrong. Then of course, whether you're looking at the right observations. A new temperature record is set! Proof of global warming!

                    Not proof of causation though. That would be relatively simple, ie the theory goes that CO2 'traps' energy and re-radiates it back downwards. Trivially true, and roughly 50:50 whether it's radiated down or up... But it's also measurable. Measure the energy radiated at CO2's absorption points at the surface, TOA, and you'd have some useful data.. Which eventually started happening, ie OCO-2 and other orbiting spectrometers. Unless you know that data, you can't really test your hypotheses though, so a challenge for the believers is to find that data and where those surface instruments are...

                    1. Kiwi Silver badge
                      Pint

                      Re: Let me try to address Mr. Bob and co.

                      If not, do you have any preferred models where reanalysis has shown a good fit with reality?

                      That's the bugger with the "all the science says this is happening" argument. Back in the 80's and 90's all sorts of predictions were being made, with them getting more and more dire as time wore on.

                      Now we've passed the points on which all sorts of disasters should've happened at even lower CO2 levels than today - predictions made before the advent of the SUV and other 'wonderful' vehicles - and yet we haven't seen the "runaway global warming", we haven't seen the massive sea level rises, we haven't seen squat.

                      "The science is settled!" - yet it hasn't produced any of the sort of accurate results one would expect from "settled" science!

                      Anyway, thanks for the post. Now where's the popcorn? I'm sure the responses will be rather entertaining :)

                      1. jmch Silver badge

                        Re: Let me try to address Mr. Bob and co.

                        "...and yet we haven't seen the "runaway global warming", we haven't seen the massive sea level rises, we haven't seen squat."

                        Nice straw man you burnt there!

                        None of the mainstream predictions eg UN official IPCC ones, say that runaway global warming, massive sea level rises etc are happening now. What they say is that these things will happen within the next 30-50 years if we don't change drastically reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.

                        What we ARE seeing is reduction in (Ant)arctic ice, retreating glaciers, higher frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. For example, pro/contra activists can debate for days about temperature records, where the weather stations are, adjustements to historical data sets etc. But the number and intensity of hurricanes for the past century is well known and relatively much easier to record and quantify. And the last 30 years has seen a significant increase.

                        Incidentally I agree with you that nuclear power stations are much better for the environment than wind turbines, but either of them is significantly better than burning coal. Since you say you are concerned about pollution (but not necessarily about CO2 emmissions), well, have you been to China where sometimes visibility is a couple of km or less because of smog generated by burning coal? Or ever lived close to a coal-fired power station where anything you clean gets grimy within days, and an abnormally large proportion of kids has asthma?

                        Maybe people who are for, against, or neutral to the idea of reducing CO2 emmissions can all come together to support nuclear power, then? (we can tell the bouncer to stop Greenpeace at the door )

                        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                          Re: Let me try to address Mr. Bob and co.

                          None of the mainstream predictions eg UN official IPCC ones, say that runaway global warming, massive sea level rises etc are happening now. What they say is that these things will happen within the next 30-50 years if we don't change drastically reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.

                          Actually, they don't. Which is perhaps one of those good news/bad news things if you're a slow boiling frog. There have been some dire predictions of massive sea level rises, ie meters, but actual, measured rate of increase is measured in millimetres, and pretty much unchannged.

                          So to get a 'massive' rise, you need some mechanism to create a sudden influx of water.. Which climate alarmists happily provide. Melting glaciers etc. Thing is, those have been retreating since the last Ice Age, along with isostatic rebound making land rise. Which is all part of the attribution fun. Norway is tilting, so do rising tree lines mean warmer, CO2 fertilisation, or ground rising? All have an effect.

                          What we ARE seeing is reduction in (Ant)arctic ice, retreating glaciers, higher frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

                          Are we? And is this at all unusual? Ice mass wasn't really quantifiable pre-satellite era, and we've now got stuff like radar sats & aircraft that can measure ice depth. But only over a relatively short period of time. So the usual 'record highs' are often very short records, especially when looking at climate stuff which is averaged weather over a 30yr interval. Some glaciers have been advancing. Ones that retreat have been uncovering organic remains (trees etc) or human activities, which imply those grew or happened before the glacier covered them. Which could mean it was warmer in the past, or changes in hydrology.

                          Then there's extreme weather. See-

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy#/media/File:Atlantic_ace_timeseries_1850-2014.jpg

                          What we do see is more extreme reporting when there's a weather event, and attempts to attribute those to global warming. Like the recent tornados in the US.. Except they were due to the US being unseasonably cold, so cold air from land mass meets warm ocean air and storm follows. That data may show some non-CO2 induced cyclical behaviour, ie ENSO, AMO/PDO cycles.. But those are also massive energy exchanges. ENSO El Nino is characterised by warm water upwelling. If that heats the air, wind speeds increase, increasing evaporation and perhaps forming a hurricane. Which groups like NOAA can then track using IR sats which show colder water behind the cyclone.

                          So CO2 dogma states that CO2 means boiling seas (much like the biblical prophecy for Armageddon). Reality shows that ENSO and hurricanes remove huge amounts of energy from the oceans, which sounds like a negative feedback, or a climate looking for a new equilibrium.. Which has long been known, ie our big energy transfers shift heat from the equator to the poles.. and CO2 has very little effect on that due to radiative transfer from CO2 to H2O being very inefficient.

          2. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            "catastrophic global climate change"

            The question is "How Catastrophic?"

            About 250 million years ago at the end of the Permian. era, Flood-basalt volcanism on a titanic scale, in what is now Siberia, injected enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the air as it punched through coalfields in the area.

            The result: Sudden global warming, which reached a point at which methane hydrate formations in the oceans became unstable and released vast amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Which warmed up the atmosphere even more. Which prompted more methane hydrate releases, in a vicious cycle.

            It wasn't so much the rising temperatures that killed off most of the plants, but the increasing acidity of rain. For a sizable period of time (long enough to be observed but not long enough to be estimated), paleopalynologists find virtually no pollen -- only spores of fungi adapted to feeding on rotting vegetation -- and the ten million years after the crisis is the only known period in natural history since the arrival of plants on land that no coal formed anywhere on earth. Which is a very good marker of how far-reaching the death of land plants was.

            All of those fungi and microorganisms feeding on the dead plants (and, soon after, the dead animals) consumed oxygen and excreted carbon dioxide -- making their own contribution to the vicious cycle, with no living plants to take up CO2 and damp the effect. Some palaeontologists believe that this cycle, once triggered, could have played out very, very rapidly -- on a scale of months.

            Atmospheric oxygen levels dropped from ~20% to around 12-14%. The oceans became oxygen-depleted as well; what little fauna survived was notably adapted to low-oxygen conditions. With plant life nearly extinguished, food webs collapsed. Between the increased acidity of rainfall and the denudation of slopes, erosion increased to a furious pitch.

            The result: the greatest mass extinction in Earth history -- no other even approaches it. 75-90% of species died out, and the biosphere was nearly handed back to the single-celled organisms. Biodiversity plummeted to the point at which a single species of land animal, a pig-sized herbivore, made up 80% of land animal biomass.

            It didn't just happen once, although that was the biggest one. This time around the essential ingredients (rapidly rising CO2 levels and very large marine methane clathrate deposits - which are already bubbling out along the siberian continental margin - lookup "leptav sea methane emissions) are still there. I wouldn't bet on H. sapiens sapiens making it through the coming challenge, let alone its "civilisations".

            1. jmch Silver badge

              Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

              "How Catastrophic?"

              Just to clear this up - there is no catastrophe that we can cause that will significantly affect the planet Earth, or indeed the viability of life on it, over a geological or planetary timescale.

              What we can definitely do, are on the path to do, and will happen if we don't take countermeasures, is rendering huge amounts of the planet's surface completely or partially uninhabitable by humans, and a considerable number of both plant and animal species

      2. HamsterNet

        Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

        I'll make this easy.

        Humans emit 35,900,000,000,000KG of CO2 per year and climbing. 1KG of CO2 is enough to fill two baths. Just try and let that number sink in, its huge,

        Plants, all of them from the algae in the seas to the forests ran out of capacity to absorb the extra carbon a long time ago. Plans currently taking about half of what we emit. The remaining 17,950,000,000,000KG is accumulating the in the atmosphere per year and every extra KG we emit just stays there. This is why the atmospheric CO2 levels are now skyrocketing. To scale, if you take an average model globe, the atmosphere would be as think as the paint!. It’s not big at all.

        CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat from the Sun in the atmosphere. The more CO2 the more heat is retained from the sun and so the hotter the global average temperature is. We can track the historic CO2 levels (over billions of years) in the atmosphere and they map perfectly onto average global temperatures with a slight lag.

        This process is lagged, thus if you put vast amount of CO2 in the atmosphere it takes a few years for the temperature to rise to its new equilibrium temperature. If the CO2 drops it take a good few years for the Earth to cool down. As you may have noticed the earth is quite large and it take a LOT of energy to heat the oceans up, but they store a lot of energy when heated even a little.

        Best case we lose most of the ice on Antarctica, and all of it on Greenland, Siberia and the sea levels rises at least 20+ meters. This is already inevitable, the last time CO2 was this high, that had already happened. Now where do humans put all their capital cities? How much of our land is 20M or less than sea-level? Do you like hurricanes, as warmer oceans make them larger and more common.

        Worse case is the ocean circulation stops, because of excess fresh water at the polls and warm water at the polls. This has also happened before when CO2 was high and it resulted in the extinction of 99% of all life on earth.

        Well no the actual worse case is we hit a tipping point where the system runaways and we make Earth like her sister planet – Venus.

        1. intrigid

          Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

          "Plants, all of them from the algae in the seas to the forests ran out of capacity to absorb the extra carbon a long time ago."

          You're assuming there's a fixed supply of foliage in the world. There isn't. CO2 is to vegetation as vegetation is to gazelles, as gazelles are to lions. As the CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the overall "greenness" of the planet increases. Forests, plants, algae grow thicker and faster in a warmer, higher CO2 environment. How else do you explain why the extremely high levels of CO2 identified tens of thousands of years ago, far higher than today's concentrations, did not result in an irreversible climate catastrophe?

          1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            How else do you explain why the extremely high levels of CO2 identified tens of thousands of years ago, far higher than today's concentrations, did not result in an irreversible climate catastrophe?

            Something wonderful happened! Or just one of those little mysteries that a carbon-dominated climate can't easily explain. Like where did all the old stuff go, and how do you make an Ice Age? Milankovitch cycles are the usual meme, but effect exceeds cause. It needs some mechanism to create a massive draw-down in CO2 levels to create the cooling showed in fossil records, or our orbit taking quite an excursion for no apparent reason to get energy levels down.

            1. bombastic bob Silver badge
              Megaphone

              Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

              How else do you explain why the extremely high levels of CO2 identified tens of thousands of years ago, far higher than today's concentrations, did not result in an irreversible climate catastrophe?

              High CO2 concentrations can be explained by HIGH TEMPERATURES, but not the other way around, as the oceans' capacity to store CO2 varies according to temperature, just like the way a soda goes flat as it gets warmer. This is due to the solubility vs temperature of various gasses in water, plus the equilibrium reaction of CO2+H20 <==> HCO3 + OH (and others)

              Yeah I had chemistry classes a while back. I still remember it. This is also why most climate change B.S. is so laughably irrational, because NOBODY who really understands chemistry and physics could POSSIBLY buy into that unless there's money (or a political agenda) involved.

              1. raving angry loony

                Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                Anyone who thinks basic chemistry and physics prepares them for climate science is a fucking ignorant, self-important idiot. Or a shill for certain organizations who profit from ignoring the obvious. Either way, first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

                1. Kobblestown

                  Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  I was about to write something similar but you beat me to up. The poster above reminds me of a co-student of mine at an oral exam. He complained that he told the professor everything yet he still failed him. I got the same ticket later that day and got an A. I may have known something more than said student thought was "everything"...

                  The problem is, people like the OP will say - yeah, you told the professor what he wanted to hear. Obviously, regular people on the street know more than any given professor in a University.

                2. Casca

                  Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  It's bombastic bob what do you expect?

                  1. bombastic bob Silver badge
                    Boffin

                    Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                    "It's bombastic bob what do you expect?"

                    FACTS and HONEST TRUTH. You're welcome!

                    howler monkeys: g'head and continue to downvote me, it's an honor that YOU take the time to do so, proving my point even more.

                    1. RyokuMas Silver badge

                      Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                      " it's an honor that YOU take the time to do so, proving my point even more"

                      I've just gotta ask - you're not related to Otis Eugene Ray, by any chance?

                3. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  @raving angry loony

                  That is a very good comment. It is both true and ambiguous enough to apply to both sides arguing over climate change.

                4. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

                  Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  Anyone who thinks basic chemistry and physics prepares them for climate science is a fucking ignorant, self-important idiot.

                  No, not really true. Obviously it doesn't prepare you to understand the detailed models used by experts, but what a good grounding in basic science SHOULD teach is the ability to think clearly and logically, to look at and analyse facts, and to draw logical conclusions.

                  (Not that different to the requirements for a successful career in IT.)

                  That really should be a major help in understanding and appreciating the arguments about why human activity is endangering the future of humanity through extreme and rapid changes to the climate.

                  It should also help them to sit down and look coolly and clearly at the arguments over whether or not leaving the EU would be a good thing for the UK. The recent polls suggest a lot of people did not do well in 'basic science'.

                  1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                    Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                    No, not really true. Obviously it doesn't prepare you to understand the detailed models used by experts, but what a good grounding in basic science SHOULD teach is the ability to think clearly and logically, to look at and analyse facts, and to draw logical conclusions.

                    (Not that different to the requirements for a successful career in IT.)

                    True. To be successful in IT, one should be familiar with concepts like 'to err is human..', or just GIGO. Then perhaps read the infamous Harry readme file leaked during the CRU 'hack'. And then perhaps start looking at statistical methods used (and abused) in climate science.

                    But climate models are both detailed and extremely crude. Partly by necessity, ie they're attempting to simulate an entire planetary weather system over long timescales, when some of the mechanisms and variables are unknown. Or poorly understood. Crudity also comes from that scale. All you have to do is start with a high resolution digital terrain model, apply CFD to boundary layers, and simulate energy transfers up, down and sideways through atmosphere and to surface/space. Then go surf some Rosby waves while waiting for your scenario to complete.

                    So despite climate scientists getting their mitts on ever more powerful supercomputers, it's still extremely challenging. Hence why they tend to use very large grid cells, and struggle simulating things like ice, or especially clouds. What they are good for though is testing assumptions.

                    So waaay back in time, a certain James Hansen presented the outcomes of NASA's GISS model to the US, which included 3 scenarios based on CO2 levels, and predicted outcomes. That was over 30yrs ago now, and the prediction's simply been falsified. Predicted temperature increases haven't appeared in reality. Same's happened with many other early predictions, leading to climate sensitivity for CO2 being revised downwards.

                    But some scientists are still heavily invested in promoting Thermageddon, or just heavily invested.. Like Al Gore, who trains budding climate activists and runs a few VC funds. Or Jeremy Grantham, who bankrolls the LSE's 'Grantham Institute' to promote Thermageddon. And because of the huge sums of money involved, it's a lot easier for governments to declare meaningless 'Climate Emergencies' than it is to admit they've been conned by junk science.

                    But there aren't, and almost certainly won't be extreme or rapid changes to the climate from adding a few more molecules of CO2. The science simply doesn't support that theory.

                5. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
                  Alien

                  @ Raving angry loon Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  Anyone who thinks basic chemistry and physics prepares them for climate science is a fucking ignorant, self-important idiot. Or a shill for certain organizations who profit from ignoring the obvious. Either way, first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

                  Yeah.

                  I mean just out of curiosity... how does the sun affect the earth's climate? Or cosmic radiation?

                  And to that matter, the shift in the molten core of the earth, and its impact on the shift of the magnetic poles which impacts the magnetosphere?

                  Free clue... the earth isn't a sphere so shifting of the poles will have an impact in terms of shape and intensity.

                  But hey! Them climate specialists studied all of this too, right?

                  (That what rhetorical. They're too busy fighting over the impact of how the sensors collected data....)

                6. Kiwi Silver badge
                  Facepalm

                  Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  Anyone who thinks basic chemistry and physics prepares them for climate science is a fucking ignorant, self-important idiot. Or a shill for certain organizations who profit from ignoring the obvious.

                  You mean like Al Gore and all his rich buddies? Those who make $billions demanding the rest of us shell out $taxes so they can fly around the world to their next conference ('flying's bad, mmkay? Don't do it. We only do it so we can quickly get to this tropical resorthotbed of uneducated people who quickly need to be told how bad flying is, before we fly to the next resort islandimportant conference. Don't fly, it's bad, mmkay?')

                  Who is making money from this? Who is living as if what they say isn't actually reality?

                  That should tell you something. That should tell you a lot. Unless you're "ignoring the obvious".

                  1. Geoffrey W Silver badge

                    Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                    RE: "Who is making money from this? Who is living as if what they say isn't actually reality?"

                    The oil companies?

                    Well, not actually making money "From" it, but making money by denying it and carrying on as before. It's their documented strategy, and it has varied from total denial at first, to well, it's not as bad as they say it is, with lots of obfuscation thrown in and diversionary tactics and what-a-bout-ery. It's the same argument you used, but worse.

                    That tells me something. Aren't you ignoring the obvious?

                    1. Kiwi Silver badge
                      Facepalm

                      Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                      Well, not actually making money "From" it, but making money by denying it and carrying on as before. It's their documented strategy, and it has varied from total denial at first, to well, it's not as bad as they say it is, with lots of obfuscation thrown in and diversionary tactics and what-a-bout-ery.

                      's funny. I hear lots about how the oil companies are doing all this stuff.. But seeing actual evidence of it is another matter.

                      Just like the massive sea level rises. Where's the evidence? "Oh trust me, it's there if you look. If you can't see it then you're just a DENIER! If you can't see how the see level has risen you should go kill yourself coz you're just an evil denier! I don't care that you can measure the sea level on your coastal cities and compare that with >100 years ago, the cities are now under water and if you claim you're living there you just a liar and a DENIAR!!!!!!1!!!!111!!!!11!!1!!1!!1!!1111111!1!!1!!

                      Also of interest is you said nothing to refute my point that Gore el al have made a lot of money from this and live a lifestyle that strongly suggests they don't believe what they're spouting..

                      "...diversionary tactics and what-a-bout-ery..."

                      Yes.. Your entire post even.

                      Perhaps you could answer the challenge? Should it not be a concern that Gore's "carbon footprint" is probably more than all of us in this thread combined? Wouldn't you expect to find him in a "tiny house" living self-sufficiently, generating all his own power needs, driving a small electric car (or using pedal power/public transport etc) if things are really as dire as he claims?

                      Quoting the Bible again - it says you'll see a prophet "out in their field", IOW they live what they believe. You see it with so many others as well, they change their lifestyle to match what they think is coming - if they think the property market will boom they buy houses, if they think it will shrink they'll sell. If someone thinks San Andreas is about to go and wipe out several cities, they'll move out of those cities. If they think the US is about to be nuked they leave (or head for the hills). If they think a certain food is toxic they stop eating it, if they believe vaccines are the devil's jizz they prevent their kids from getting vaccinated.

                      Gore claims to believe we're damaging the planet with CO2 and the sea levels will rise and various other things. Yet where/how does he live? His actions should be speaking far far louder than his words!

                      Yes, I do believe we are tossing too much pollution into the atmosphere - so I do what I can about it and try to get others to do the same, starting with growing your own food where you can, living efficiently in your energy use (eg insulating your house if you live in places like where I do) and so on. Pollute less, use less power, buy less and make your own land productive, much less reliance on imports please! And that's what I live. My lifestyle reflects my beliefs about what is coming (I also have a large amount of rainwater stored as I expect I'll need it when summer starts in a few months)

                      Gore doesn't appear to live what he claims to believe, and if he doesn't live it then it's a fair bet he doesn't believe it.

                      1. This post has been deleted by its author

                        1. Kiwi Silver badge
                          WTF?

                          Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                          I'm not going to spend more time with you than posting links. You aren'r worth the effort, you little man.

                          Wow.. Firstly, I've already quite proudly posted here in reference to my diminutive height so your attempt at insults falls rather flat. Not that I would consider your level of arguing to be worthy of offence.

                          Second... The greatest argument you can come up with is to quote the Guardian? You actually attempt to insult someone (and fail badly!) and quote the Guardian, and expect your argument to carry any weight?

                          Wow.. Just... wow...

                7. bombastic bob Silver badge
                  Trollface

                  Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  "first up against the wall when the revolution comes."

                  Just TRY it. I double [expletive deleted] DARE you.

            2. Adrian 4 Silver badge

              Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

              "How else do you explain why the extremely high levels of CO2 identified tens of thousands of years ago, far higher than today's concentrations, did not result in an irreversible climate catastrophe?"

              Depends what you call an irreversible climate catastrophe. The planet survived the last few climatic catastrophes and it's going to be fine - it won't fall into the sun or anything and doesn't much care what sort of life, if any, inhabits the surface. But the dinosaurs didn't do so well.

              Personally, I'm not that bothered. It's not going to get *that* much worse before I die of old age or advanced cynicism, and when I look at Trump and Bob I think these modern dinosaurs are due for extinction anyway. It's like a wildfire : hold it back if it helps you for now, but ultimately it's good for the ground to have a purge now and again.

              I guess if you don't want to go the way of the republicans you might feel it's worth trying harder to preserve the status quo. Best of luck to you, but I'd hedge my bets and start learning to change my metabolism. It's likely to be easier than changing a politician's mind.

              1. Pier Reviewer

                Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                Thanos? Is that you?

          2. Jamie Jones Silver badge

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            How else do you explain why the extremely high levels of CO2 identified tens of thousands of years ago, far higher than today's concentrations, did not result in an irreversible climate catastrophe?

            CO2 is currently waaaaaaay higher than it's ever been in the last 800,000 years at least, as this handy little graph shows:

            <img src="https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/paleo_CO2_2017_620.gif">

            Ref: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

            1. bombastic bob Silver badge
              Megaphone

              Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

              if it's warmer, then CO2 levels WILL be higher... NOT because CO2 levels are CAUSING "the warm" but because "the warm" CAUSES the higher CO2!!!!!

              soda can. gets warm. goes flat. Duh. CO2 not held in water any more as temperature goes up. Cold soda holds more CO2. Warm soda releases it. Same with the earths oceans. Duh.

              1. Patrician

                Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                The soda in the soda can goes flat because the can is opened and the CO2 that was dissolved in the soda under pressure is released as the pressure is released. The ambient temperature has little measurable effect on this model.

                1. bombastic bob Silver badge
                  Boffin

                  Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  not true - it's why coca cola glasses are shaped the way they are, by the way: the larger diameter part has a larger diameter so that ICE CUBES (not crushed ice) can be used.

                  This has 2 dramatic effects: The cold layer stays relatively cold and does not melt the ice as fast, AND the cold later causes the CO2 bubbles to stay in the soda.

                  I've got several of those glasses and I should probably show it on a youtube vid just to make a point. But if you drink a lot of soda like _I_ do, you'll see this happen. It becomes obvious, even intuitively so.

                  And there's also THIS: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/1148/solubility-co2-water.png

                  yeah, nothing like a few FACTS to spoil the emotion-based "feel" about man-made climate change B.S., actually swallowing THAT Koolaid in the face of OBVIOUS chemistry and physics and engineering and indisuputable SCIENCE.

                  but when you FEEL instead of THINK, you can MANIPULATE (and be manipulated into) all KINDS of outright STUPIDITY. And *THEN* guilt/insult OTHER people for NOT swallowing that same Koolaid.

              2. Comments are attributed to your handle
                Stop

                Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                You're simply wrong. https://skepticalscience.com/warming-co2-rise.htm

            2. Timmy B Silver badge

              Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

              Though other charts on that page show the increase in human CO2 production since 1980 far less than the overall increase in CO2 over the same time. Where is all the extra CO2 coming from? It also doesn't follow that CO2 is the same globally. Where is the 400 odd level measured? Hawaii. What's near there - volcanoes and warm seas. What do volcanoes and warm seas produce? A shed load of CO2. To truly know and match measurements you would need to do like for like - measure historic ice cores for today in the future and compare them.

              All of this just seems like science arrogance: "We know everything" instead of "We know a lot more than other people in the past but in 200 or 500 years we will be regarded as ignorant as those that thought the atom was the smallest thing possible and that flies magically erupt from piles of rubbish".

              From what I see of the charts we have a roughly 150K year cycle of temp and CO2. And whilst we may have altered it slightly the cycle persists and we have no reason to think it wont.

              I am old enough to remember the Ozone hole layer panic - the one that said that if we don't stop the hole we were all doomed in a few years. The hole is still, slowly, increasing and more than a few years have passed. I think we're all still here.

              1. Alan Brown Silver badge

                Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                "Where is the 400 odd level measured? Hawaii."

                The atmosphere is pretty homogenous. Mixing happens quite well.

                Measurements are taken all over the globe.

                Hawaii was the LAST place that measurements crossed the 400ppm threshold with all other parts of the world being a few ppm higher.

              2. Patrician

                Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                "I am old enough to remember the Ozone hole layer panic - the one that said that if we don't stop the hole we were all doomed in a few years. The hole is still, slowly, increasing and more than a few years have passed. I think we're all still here."

                The ozone "hole" is repairing it's self, primarily due to us stopping releasing CFC's into the atmosphere

                https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/05/ozone-layer-healing-after-aerosols-un-northern-hemisphere

                1. Timmy B Silver badge

                  Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  I'd not use the Guardian for reliable reporting. It's like depending on Fox news but swinging the other way. The main point was that "we're all doomed" was the cry as it is now with climate change. Or as it was with global cooling in the 70s, etc...

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                    Except the guardian article being quoted is referring to a four year study, so is showing its source unlike most Fox news articles

                2. Kiwi Silver badge
                  Boffin

                  Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                  The ozone "hole" is repairing it's self, primarily due to us stopping releasing CFC's into the atmosphere

                  Many moons ago a friend of mine gave me a demonstration. Bucket of CFC. Tipped into another bucket. Second bucket picked up and tipped into the first.

                  The point - this gas that was supposedly causing the ozone hole was too large.

                  I also remember stuff from a few years before that where there was talk that the US wanted to "punch holes" in the ozone layer to help with some astronomical observations (or was it high-altitude atmosphere? Quite certain it was the astronomical stuff though). The sudden 'hole in the ozone layer' thus never bothered me because I just linked the two events - "we want a hole" and "we now have a hole". I was quite surprised that it became linked to CFC.

                  Not that using CFC was exactly a good thing, not at all bothered with their passing (so long as the stuff used in their stead is less harmful - not exactly a certainty when we're talking greenies).

          3. Richocet

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            I hate to break it to you but people are cutting down forests at an unprecedented rate. Mostly in countries you have probably never visited. So the capacity of vegetation to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is reducing not increasing.

            So CO2 output is growing and the ability of plant life to absorb it is shrinking. Plus it was posted earlier that it's not even close to enough to absorb the current CO2 output every year.

            Crisis is a reasonable label for that situation.

            I've been avoiding thinking about it for a few months, and it's not a nice feeling to be typing this post. Thanks a lot denialists for making me think about this again.

            1. bombastic bob Silver badge
              Devil

              Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

              "I hate to break it to you but people are cutting down forests at an unprecedented rate"

              And re-planting trees where they once were and turning the wood into houses, baseball bats, pianos, guitars, furniture, and works of art in general. Works for me!

              Most of the earth's CO2 and O2 is exchanged via ALGAE anyway. Besides, when you spew alleged facts like that, why should we believe YOU?

              1. Casca

                Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                Why should we Believe YOU? Oh look, I have a shift to...

              2. Timmy B Silver badge

                Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

                "And re-planting trees where they once were and turning the wood into houses, baseball bats, pianos, guitars, furniture, and works of art in general. Works for me!"

                It will take decades if not longer for a sapling to be absorbing as much CO2 as a veteran lumber tree. But I do agree that most lumber is a worthy harvest (or I'd not be part of it) and far better to use than plastic or concrete.

          4. bombastic bob Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            "As the CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the overall "greenness" of the planet increases"

            Correct. "Biological equilibrium". And greenhouse growers have been spiking the air with CO2 for DECADES to make things GROW FASTER...

          5. Casca

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            Not if we keep cutting down the forrests no...

          6. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
            Trollface

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            How else do you explain why the extremely high levels of CO2 identified tens of thousands of years ago, far higher than today's concentrations, did not result in an irreversible climate catastrophe?

            I blame it on the Dinosaurs and their smoking. Oh wait. That was millions of years ago.

            Then I blame it on the massive number of wild buffaloes on the great plains of the US and their massive amount of methane release.

          7. Schultz

            Big misconception: "CO2 is plant food"

            (1) photosynthesis converts CO2 into bound carbon and oxygen, using energy from the sun. This process does not release energy, so please don't consider CO2 as 'food'. We use the bound carbon and oxygen as food when we eat plant matter - we parasitic ally consume the energy the plant stored.

            (2) the growth rate of plants is rarely limited by the availability of CO2 - having more available won't make plants grow much faster or better. Look at the ingredients of your common fertilizer if you want to learn more.

            1. Kiwi Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Big misconception: "CO2 is plant food"

              (1) photosynthesis converts CO2 into bound carbon and oxygen, using energy from the sun. This process does not release energy, so please don't consider CO2 as 'food'. We use the bound carbon and oxygen as food when we eat plant matter - we parasitic ally consume the energy the plant stored.

              (2) the growth rate of plants is rarely limited by the availability of CO2 - having more available won't make plants grow much faster or better. Look at the ingredients of your common fertilizer if you want to learn more.

              Well. 1) Plants use the carbon as a building-block for making the structures that g9ve them their mass - NOT for energy (although carbon is useful in some chemical reactions that are critical to life (at least as we know it).

              2) Yes, it's obvious CO2 isn't related to plant growth. If it was, greenhouse growers would be pumping tons of CO2 into their greenhouses to increase plant yield, but since they never do that obviously.. Oh, shit, wait a minute...

        2. swm Bronze badge

          Now where do humans put all their capital cities?

          Is this where all of the politicians reside? Maybe rising sea levels aren't all bad.

          1. raving angry loony

            Re: Now where do humans put all their capital cities?

            @swm - the rich, who are overwhelmingly responsible for the issue, can move.

            The poor don't have that option. Those who die won't be those responsible. Not unless there's some sort of revolution that brings those self-serving idiots down. Hard.

            1. Kiwi Silver badge

              Re: Now where do humans put all their capital cities?

              The poor don't have that option. Those who die won't be those responsible. Not unless there's some sort of revolution that brings those self-serving idiots down. Hard.

              You do realise that the sea level rises are measured in micrometers per millennia, rights? It's not exactly going to be coming up so fast that people don't have time to run from it.

              Although I currently live far enough above the sea levels that even a large tsunami is not a concern, I would happily live on the coast again. It's not a change to the climate that I need to worry about, it's pollution, earthquakes and landslides that are the key concerns.

        3. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
          Flame

          Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

          Quote

          Well no the actual worse case is we hit a tipping point where the system runaways and we make Earth like her sister planet – Venus.

          What utter and complete bollocks.

          Theres nothing man could do to turn the earth into venus, for that to happen we'd need to raise the temperature in the tropics to about 70C, because then the water in the air wont fall as rain, and just acts as another greenhouse gas making the earth hotter... hence the oceans boil away and we get encased in a steam bath.

          Thats the runaway point and we're nowhere near that and wont be for another 1.5 billion years(give or take an ice age) when the sun's thermal output has risen by about 10-15%

          In fact regardless of what we do, in 250 thousand years or so we're going into an ice age whether we want to or not....

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Nothing"

            Don't tempt them. While it's not going to happen via carbon dioxide production, we could glass the surface with nukes. That won't turn us into Venus... but will still be unplesant.

            Carbon may or may not be end of the world results. But the good old saying of "don't poop in your own bed" may apply. If we know it's bad, best not run away with it.

            Besides, all these saying "climate alarmists are over exaggerating" might change their tune when the seas acidify or the methane traps bubble up (so may not even be warming/weather that gets us first, but other unintended consequences!).

          2. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            "Theres nothing man could do to turn the earth into venus, for that to happen we'd need to raise the temperature in the tropics to about 70C,"

            About 7-10C actually. Enough to raise water vapour levels to enable solar forcing to do the rest - water vapour is a _very_ strong greenhouse gas.

            Widespread temperatures above 55C are cause for concern.

        4. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

          "CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat from the Sun in the atmosphere"

          So you say. how does it do that? *crickets chirp* because _I_ know the answer you WANT to give, and yet, the infrared absorption spectrum of CO2 says _OTHERWISE_. You know, black body radiation... how heat transfer into outer space works, what the CO2 allegedly "traps", and so forth. Can't trap what it's INVISIBLE to now, can it? Check it out, you'll maybe get a "light bulb" moment.

          1. Patrician

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            "Can't trap what it's INVISIBLE to now, can it?"

            Of course it can and this statement shows how your understanding of science is a little wanting.

      3. John Savard Silver badge

        Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

        Increased carbon dioxide emissions are bad for the planet because:

        The proportion of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has, over the last several decades, changed measurably.

        Carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave infrared radiation. That means it doesn't block sunlight during the day time that warms places on the Earth, but it does block those places from radiating heat back out into space during the night time. So those places will get warmer and warmer until outgoing heat equals incoming heat again, leading to a new equilibrium.

        Note that while water vapor is a better greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, for one thing, it goes up when temperatures are hotter, so it's just part of a feedback loop that makes the effects of carbon dioxide worse... and, for another, it still settles out of the atmosphere each winter, while carbon dioxide stays there, so decreasing carbon dioxide emissions will have a real effect.

        The United States should lower its carbon emissions more than places like Burkina Faso because:

        People in Third World countries are living on the edge of survival in many cases. They don't have choices like we do, they don't have a comfortable standard of living with room to make sacrifices.

        As for the People's Republic of China - there I won't argue, they just sort of snuck in under that principle.

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

          Carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave infrared radiation. That means it doesn't block sunlight during the day time that warms places on the Earth, but it does block those places from radiating heat back out into space during the night time. So those places will get warmer and warmer until outgoing heat equals incoming heat again, leading to a new equilibrium.

          OK, so how much energy? Gimme watts per square meter, and a source for your empirical data.

          Otherwise, it's the usual "if, then, Thermageddon!" argument. Real argument is getting an accurate handle on the climate sensitivity number, so relationship between CO2 levels and energy. CO2 molecules aren't polarised, so can't tell if the energy is Sun-Earth, or Earth to space.. And radiative transfer's a pretty small component in our Earth's system. Especially when water vapour's absorption spectrum overlaps and dwarf's the narrow window for CO2.

          But that's how the Green Blob's turned plant food into a multi-trillion dollar horror industry. Aided of course by IT. So climate models. Programme those with high sensitivity, and lo, you get lots of global warming. But then when you run reanalysis between climate model predictions and actual observations, the world has warmed less than expected. Which should be good news, especially if the relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic because to get the next doubling of CO2, we'd have to burn every scrap of carbon.

          1. Rich 10

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            Umm, you double the amount of CO2, you are back at the age of the dinosaurs - no ice anywhere and much higher sea levels. Me thinks you lack an understanding of how much the impact of even a 5% greater rise in CO2 will cause.

            450 ppm (High risk): “The OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: Key Findings on Climate Change” summarizes predictions by climate scientists’ models: we have a 50% chance of stabilizing the average global temperature at a 2°C increase over the pre-industrial period if we keep concentrations of CO2 under 450 ppm. A November 2013 report by PwC, Busting the carbon Budget, says that at our current rate of fossil fuel usage in the global economy, we will exceed that limit by 2034.

            Add 2C increase, and global temps are high enough to create great changes in weather and sea levels. Doesn't sound like much, but ask people that live along the coast what that will mean - add say, 10ft to sea levels, no, make that 5 ft, and places like Bangladesh lose huge amounts of land. Cities like Miami, New York City, Shanghai, etc, lose big chunks too.

            The US has a falling output of CO2 due to the swap from coal to natural (aka Freedom) gas, though that will be somewhat offset as nuclear plants close and are not replaced, forcing the use of more fossil fuels.

            And natural gas (methane) has a thermal retention capacity of 30 times more than CO2, so as we shift to natural gas, and drill for natural gas, and the warming melts things like permafrost which allows the plant matter to decay and release methane, that impact has to be taken into account too.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

              Yep. Compounded interest. "5% in X years" may sound tiny, but in 20 times X years, you've doubled... etc etc. Boiling a frog and all that.

            2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

              Umm, you double the amount of CO2, you are back at the age of the dinosaurs - no ice anywhere and much higher sea levels. Me thinks you lack an understanding of how much the impact of even a 5% greater rise in CO2 will cause.

              OK, so to keep life simple, baseline @400ppmv CO2, so increase that to 420ppmv for your 5% increase. The contentious bit is according to the IPCC's physical basis, that will equate to a negligible (and practically unmeasurable) temperature rise. And certainly nowhere near the levels that kept the dinosaurs warm. Hence my bit about a logarithmic model, which is still Thermageddon 101. That assumes the rate of temperature increase slows as CO2 levels rise, so we've already seen the most of the 'post-industrial' increase, and won't be able to max out the next because we just don't have enough carbon.

              Same with stuff like permafrost melts, or clathrate gun hypotheses.. Currently we've had a 'greening of the Earth' due to rising CO2 levels, which is a good thing. Crops love CO2, so does other vegetation, which will die anway. And if that's a real concern, there should be more active forest management to prevent that material building up, causing wildfires and releasing lots of carbon.

              But such is politics. The US is desperate to get people to buy it's gas & oil now it's become an exporter. Europe needs more gas for CCGT to create electricity when it's dark, or the wrong kind of wind. Climate 'experts' tell us we'll get more catastrophic weather, yet also seem to insist we build giant windmills and solar farms that are far more vulnerable to extreme weather than coal, gas or nuclear.

              But then..

              https://standpointmag.co.uk/issues/june-2019/gretas-very-corporate-childrens-crusade/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2a7e1c17cf-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_30_03_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-2a7e1c17cf-20144013

              Svante also claims that “we have never worked with” We Have No Time or Global Challenge. Yet Greta served on We Have No Time’s advisory board between November 2018 and January 2019, and Malena Ernman signed a letter with four Global Challenge board members.

              Greta being the savant child advising politicians & other world leaders when she's bunking off school. The article explains how she became such a carefully crafted and promoted meme though.. And presumably borrowed from the old Jesuit adage.. Show me a gullible child, I'll show you the next generation of climate activist.

            3. Kiwi Silver badge
              Thumb Down

              Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

              Add 2C increase, and global temps are high enough to create great changes in weather and sea levels. Doesn't sound like much, but ask people that live along the coast what that will mean - add say, 10ft to sea levels, no, make that 5 ft, and places like Bangladesh lose huge amounts of land. Cities like Miami, New York City, Shanghai, etc, lose big chunks too.

              Yes. I was so saddened when my coastal city of Lower Hutt disappeared under the sea back before 2005 and.. No wait, the predicted sea level rise didn't happen back then, sea levels now are the same as 100 years ago, why should I believe the alarmists about the future when every single sea level threat has failed to materialise?

              EVERY SINGLE ONE has failed to occur. So why should I believe your claims that the rapture will happen 24 Maysea level will rise by 5ft in a few years?

              See https://www.google.co.nz/maps/@-41.1052745,174.904395,3a,75y,39.58h,87.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGOTcWQ3rDWWnWChvzF2b3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656. I've been driving that road on a regular basis for the last 30 years. That's the Tasman Ocean to the left there (well, an inlet from it - I doubt the ocean has much of a difference in level from the inlet a few hundred yards away). The roads been there more than 50 years. Every windy day during high tide we get waves splashing onto the road, sometimes washing debris onto the road. Guess how close the water gets to that spot at high tide? I'll give you a hint.. To quote wassisnames song, "Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was".

              Wanna talk about what it's like to live in coastal areas? Try talking to someone who does, rather than spouting off this alarmist nonsense. Try visiting reality instead of spouting the terrorists's lies. Some of us here do live around low-lying coastal areas and do actually look out our windows at what is going on.

              (That said, I'd much rather see Nuclear power than anything else, especially anything that burns "fossil fuels" - I prefer Hydro over Nuke as at least Hydro is renewable - and I much much much prefer people learn to use less 'leccy than build more power plants - although if NZ was to go for nuclear in a big way we would never have to fire up out coal/gas plants again and could start to phase out our hydro schemes)

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

          As for the People's Republic of China - there I won't argue, they just sort of snuck in under that principle.

          As irony would have it, there are about to enact about the most dramatic change in emission ever. Not entirely deliberate, but China ended up with a massive pollution problem to the point where it HAD to act and as a nice side effect, that affects their emissions as well because they are switching over to electric traffic and different ways of power generation. Being not a democracy, the Chinese government could pretty much just impose it so they now have developed their own intellectual property which they can use in solutions to sell to others.

          That will be a FAR more aggressive threat to the dollar than pesky tit-for-tat trade wars, and there's absolutely zip the US can do about it. They'll be gentle because they have their own US dollar assets to protect, but thanks to Trump, the US is also years behind in climate control measures.

          I am afraid the Americans are about to learn that other countries have smart people too. Trade wars have consequences and ramifications well beyond the actual goods involved, and there are already signs in the bonds market that the US economy is trending towards a recession - again.

        3. bombastic bob Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

          "Carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave infrared radiation. That means it doesn't block sunlight during the day time that warms places on the Earth, but it does block those places from radiating heat back out into space during the night time"

          The FIRST part is right. CO2 is _INVISIBLE_ to IR energies that correspond to temperatures between about -50F and about 140 or 150F. That means, for REAL temperatures that exist on earth, their black body radiation energies are TRANSPARENT as far as CO2 is concerned.

          So first part, CORRECT. 2nd part, PURE BULLSHIT. Because CO2 does NOT absorb those energies, that's why. Your sources are WRONG. _I_ have done the research, so _I_ know.

          And, YOU can do the SAME research if you want... just avoid warmist/alarmist propaganda, and stick to REAL science.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            The comment was "does block those places from radiating heat back out ".

            Not that CO2 absorbes the heat.

            Stop making the argument fit your answers

          2. Patrician

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            "just avoid warmist/alarmist propaganda, and stick to REAL science"

            So avoid anywhere that doesn't confirm my pre-held beliefs; ever heard of confrontational bias?

      4. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
        Boffin

        At Bombastic ... Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

        The funny thing is that without trying and pulling out of the Paris Accord, the US dropped their CO2 emissions more than many of the countries who signed and still support the Accord.

        The reason is that because the Natural Gas is much cheaper than Coal and burns cleaner so the coal fired plants replaced coal w natural gas.

        And to answer your question... to mother nature... CO2 isn't an issue. To puny humans who live here... too much is not a good thing.

        As to the climate... its cyclical in nature and we're in a warming period.

      5. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

        Of course CO2 isn't bad for the planet, Bob, me old chum!

        As Pompeo (the guy aptly named after a city made extinct by a natural disaster) said - Think of all those new trade routes opening up in the arctic! oh, and all those lovely 'freedom fossel fuels" we (*cough* American big corporations) can mine!

        And of course, all that extra water won't have an effect on sea levels, because the planet will be hotter, so more of it will evaporate!

        Checkmate, rational people!

        1. Richocet

          Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

          Global warming is going to benefit Russia a lot. I wonder if their meddling in climate change social media was just to mess with elections in democratic countries, or if maximum climate change is their main goal.

      6. Bill Gray
        Facepalm

        Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

        "...I'll be ready with my infrared absorption spectrum curves and some physics facts regarding the solubility of gas in water vs temperature to rebut it all..."

        Yup. All the data showing a gradual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, to a current 415 ppm, are from G_dless liberals, all of whom are in cahoots. That CO2 is actually dissolving right back into the oceans.

        Look, Bob, if we were discussing this in, say, 1950, I'd have to admit to a lack of empirical evidence. I'd have to say : maybe you're right. Pump out that much CO2, and the ocean might absorb it, or plant life might increase to slurp it up. But this is 2019, we've run that experiment, and the oceans and plants are clearly _not_ slurping it that fast.

        I'll give you a hint. The oil companies started out with your line: CO2 won't increase. Then they switched to: OK, it's going up, but it won't be a problem. Now, their "reasoning" is: we can't afford to do anything about it.

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

          sorry, I happen to have some proof right here:

          http://nov79.com/gbwm/atmo.html

          The temperatures corresponding to the absorbed energies are generally temperatures NOT found on earth, and even if they were, you'd see the energy released again. CO2 is not forming a blanket, it's not stopping heat from radiating into space, but there _IS_ ONE gas that DOES do all of that, and nobody wants to control it...

          Wanna know what THAT gas is? WATER VAPOR. By my estimates, it has about 100 times the effect of CO2. And there's SO MUCH of it, too. On a cloudy night you see warmer temperatures, and you see colder temperatures on a cloudy day. it couldn't be more obvious that WATER _IS_ a GREENHOUSE GAS.

          but the planet isn't going into meltdown because of water, now is it?

          I just thoght I'd point that one out. I'd laugh SO hard if some warmist/alarmist insisted that WATER VAPOR must be limited in industrialized nations because of "climate change".

          1. Patrician

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            "you see colder temperatures on a cloudy day. it couldn't be more obvious that WATER _IS_ a GREENHOUSE GAS."

            Actually you don't necessarily; currently the UK is looking at having the warmest days of the year so far over this weekend, a cloudy weekend by the way. Last weekend was clear skies and sunny and the temperature was less than it will be this weekend.

          2. Comments are attributed to your handle

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            "by my estimates" - we look forward to your peer reviewed papers. In the meantime: https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

          3. devTrail

            Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

            You're right. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, however burning carbon based fossil fuels produces CO2 and water, cutting down the forests with slash and burn to plants cash crops releases CO2 and water. So, fighting climate change as we are doing now is not going to solve the issue, but it will mitigate it.

            but the planet isn't going into meltdown because of water, now is it?

            No scientist has ever talked about meltdown. Those who evoke this kind of catastrophes usually are trying to bring the discussion into ridicule.

            I just thoght I'd point that one out. I'd laugh SO hard if some warmist/alarmist insisted that WATER VAPOR must be limited in industrialized nations because of "climate change".

            Taking out burning fossil fuels and slash and burn the biggest source of water vapor is agriculture all over the world, taking the water from river lakes and underground to spread it on the fields accelerates evaporation. It seems you wanted to make a sarcastic argument, but the nonsense is not really the one you suggest.

            1. Kiwi Silver badge

              Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

              No scientist has ever talked about meltdown.

              True, Al Gore is no scientist. But someone put him up to the "hockeystick graph". I'll bet that person at least claimed to be a scientist.

              Or are you saying that Gore was actually deliberately trying to make the AGW stuff look stupid? Is he actually in the pay of "Big Oil" et al, who paid him to give us anti-AGW types someone to point and laugh atwho would make such a mess of things that we could legitimately doubt and question the AGW [cough]'science'[cough]?

              Taking out burning fossil fuels and slash and burn the biggest source of water vapour is agriculture all over the world, taking the water from river lakes and underground to spread it on the fields accelerates evaporation.

              You miss these teency tiny little places called SEAS AND OCEANS, which are in many places heated by underwater volcanoes and rifts. It is responsible for far more atmospheric water vapour than mankind could ever manage (at least unless we dropped every nuke we have into the oceans - but then even that would probably only be a fraction of the water vapour emitted from geological or solar effects).

              Waves breaking on the shore, or indeed breaking within the ocean itself, do quite a bit for increasing evaporation.

      7. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

        Freedom Science

      8. Trollslayer Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

        A second rate troll.

      9. jmch Silver badge

        Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

        "why it is that CO2 is bad for the planet, and why the USA needs to reduce its CO2 output more than countries like China?"

        I believe that your reluctance to accept the answer to the first past of your question is driven by the second part of your question

      10. Louis Schreurs

        "Hezekiah 1:1"

        You DO realise that all of your comments are being consumed the same way as of being on the receving end of a "Hezekiah 1:1" ?

    2. Simon Harris Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

      I think I must have slept straight through for 10 months until the next April Fool's Day...

      or is every day April Fool's Day in Trump's America?

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge

        Re: Sleep is a Good Thing(TM)

        or is every day April Fool's Day in Trump's America?

        Well, he has said that "global warming" is a lie because it was cold this winter in DC.

  3. alain williams Silver badge

    My main regret ...

    is that pollution, carbon emissions, etc, do not stay within the national borders of the country that created them. If they did then those living in the USA would reap the rewards of what they create. As it is: the USA's noxious emissions are dispersed around the world, ie we carry the can for the USA's acts of vandalism on the environment.

    Their liar in chief pronounces anthropogenic climate change as fake news: but that is because he does not have the balls to deal with it and so selfishly exports it to the rest of us.

    Having said that we, in Europe, still generate more than our fair share of pollutants, but we are trying to do something about it.

    Maybe we could arrange for Greta Thunberg to meet Trump when he is here in July.

    1. Captain Hogwash Silver badge

      Re: USA's noxious emissions are dispersed around the world

      Both literally & figuratively.

    2. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
      Paris Hilton

      Re: My main regret ...

      Give Trump his due, he is trying to build a wall that could help to contain those emissions... perhaps the rest of up could chip in to make the wall a bit higher and cover all borders?

      1. raving angry loony

        Re: My main regret ...

        The only thing that Trump is due is a much delayed date with a jail cell. Sadly, given the nature of American politics and their absolute adoration of crooks and fraudsters, I doubt that happy event will ever come to pass.

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: My main regret ...

        If the wall is high enough and sealed well enough, we could make it into a swimming pool.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: My main regret ...

          If the wall is high enough and sealed well enough, we could make it into a swimming pool.

          This is Yankeeville you're talking about. Would you want to swim in that water?

          I think it'd be more suited to a toxic waste tank. Or a sewer.

    3. the.spike
      Mushroom

      Re: My main regret ...

      "Maybe we could arrange for Greta Thunberg to meet Trump when he is here in July."

      She's already said she won't as there's no point. she said, "He's not interested in science."

      1. veti Silver badge

        Re: My main regret ...

        That's a bit defeatist. Not the conclusion, I think she's completely right that there's no point in her meeting him, but the reasoning.

        It is possible to change Trump's mind with science. Bill Gates famously talked him out of being anti-vax. But it's not possible on this specific issue, because it would be politically inconvenient for him to be converted. Truth is irrelevant, all that matters to him is winning.

    4. Avatar of They
      Thumb Up

      Re: My main regret ...

      He won't meet with her for a few simple reasons.

      1. She is a girl

      2. She is cleverer than him.

      3. She isn't from the US and therefore can't be 'right' by default.

      4. She won't back down when he talks rubbish and it could be awkward even for his PR advisors to bail him out..

      1. Jemma Silver badge

        Re: she's cleverer than him

        There are stem pelycosaurs that are cleverer than him. Better looking too.

        I have to admit I'm curious about her - but since there's a good chance she'll spout on about electric cars being the holy grail - I think I'll give her a miss.

        I don't think anyone really knows what it'll take to get out of this mess and no one really wants to know either. I include Miss Thunberg in this assessment unfortunately. I am 95% certain no one is having even the slightest idea how bad it will get and how fast.

        It took 5 million years of massive volcanism to get to the p-t extinction heating of between 7-16c. We've managed to get most of the way to the lower boundary there in less than 100 years.

        Sorry, Greta love, we're well and truly f*&#ed. You and yours included.

        1. holmegm Bronze badge

          Re: she's cleverer than him

          Then we'd better get busy finding technological solutions.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: she's cleverer than him

            Our track record on technological solutions to very large and complex problems suggests we will make things worse.

            At this point the Earth is headed for one of its periodic mass extinctions followed by new species and ecosystems arising. The only issue is whether the remaining human population goes the way of the great apes.

            1. Richocet

              Re: she's cleverer than him

              Yes, I think this is beyond technical solutions, which have mostly made the problems worse. You only need to go back about 300 years and human society was on every continent-1 but not increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

              For a start we could try replacing robots with people. Zero electricity use, and would reduce unemployment as a bonus.

              The unsustainability of our modern lifestyle won't be improved by carrying on as we are, or continuing further down the path of automation.

      2. Rich 11 Silver badge

        Re: My main regret ...

        and it could be awkward even for his PR advisors to bail him out

        They must have the most thankless task on the planet. I'm surprised they even bother anymore.

      3. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

        Re: My main regret ...

        Well, I don't think that a 16 year old has any voice in this. Thunberg is carefully packaged and may be being exploited. Alternatively, she could just be the latest incarnation of the bizarre youth-worship that landed William Hague on us.

      4. Kiwi Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: My main regret ...

        He won't meet with her for a few simple reasons.

        1. She is a girl

        She's female, and a child. There are abundant rumours that this may in fact be more than enough to get CMIC 'interested', he may even wish to sit down with her and 'discuss some hard things' that 'just came up'.

    5. devTrail

      Re: My main regret ...

      Your but doesn't tell all the story. Europe has always been leading the way in energy efficiency while the US has always promoted and keep promoting energy inefficient technologies. Have a look at the emission per capita in the US and in Europe.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: My main regret ...

        You forgot to include the emission of "smug"

    6. Dal90

      Re: My main regret ...

      >Having said that we, in Europe, still generate more than our fair share of pollutants, but we are trying to do something about it.

      1997 -- 2017: U.S. CO2 emissions down 7.6%; Europe CO2 emissions down 7.5%

      Since Trump took office, U.S. emissions have fallen each year and European emissions have risen.

      Yes -- the U.S. uses far more per capita than the Europe, but "trying to do" seems to be more about optics than statistical realities.

      Excel spreadsheet at https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html has loads of details if you'd like to dig around on your own.

      1. Aitor 1 Silver badge

        Re: My main regret ...

        You might want to look twice at that or put a decent link AND data..

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: My main regret ...

          link tossing - the way a religious fanatic tosses scripture references. Just as irritating, yeah.

          1. tomocean

            Re: My main regret ...

            Links pointing to scientific studies and data are equal to ancient stories about a dude walking on water and other fantastical myths. Who knew?

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: My main regret ...

            > link tossing - the way a religious fanatic tosses scripture references. Just as irritating, yeah.

            Links to peer reviewed scientific papers? I can see how that would appear similar to religion to someone who denies all science as "fake news".

            After all, Climate Change is a big Chinese hoax, eh, Bobby Boy?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: My main regret ...

        "Since Trump took office, U.S. emissions have fallen each year and European emissions have risen.

        Yes -- the U.S. uses far more per capita than the Europe, but "trying to do" seems to be more about optics than statistical realities."

        By "far more" you mean over 3 times as much per capita. Europe has more than twice as many people as the US and still manages to emit less CO2 in total than the US. Not sure you can really compare reduction percentages on a like for like basis when the totals are that vastly different. 7.6% compared to 7.5% may look like they US is doing just as much as Europe, but the reality is the US has a far more work to do than Europe.

        Also the BP figures you are quoting only go up to the end of 2017. Trump was only President for 11 months, so probably shouldn't give him too much credit for that reduction.

      3. devTrail

        Re: My main regret ...

        1997 -- 2017: U.S. CO2 emissions down 7.6%; Europe CO2 emissions down 7.5%

        Since Trump took office, U.S. emissions have fallen each year and European emissions have risen.

        This is not due to any effort to curb carbon emission, but to the heavy industry moving to Asian countries. You are just picking the stats useful to twist the argument.

    7. FrogsAndChips Silver badge

      Re: My main regret ...

      is that pollution, carbon emissions, etc, do not stay within the national borders of the country that created them

      To be honest, a large part of China's emissions are linked to the manufacture of goods that will be used in Western countries, so it's only fair that they end up in our atmosphere too.

    8. rcxb Bronze badge

      Re: My main regret ...

      > pollution, carbon emissions, etc, do not stay within the national borders of the country that created them. If they did then

      ...Europeans would be dead from lack of oxygen, having cut down their vast forests before the Americas were ever discovered.

    9. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: My main regret ...

      In the coming years, China, India and the developing world are going to add much more than the USA to CO2 levels because they depend on, and are building far more coal power plants, as well as putting a lot more cars on the road in striving to get to relatively similar standard of living levels as the developed West. Face it, 800 million people are there, 300 million are almost there, and well, that leaves 6 BILLION or so trying to catch up.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: My main regret ...

        "China, India and the developing world are going to add much more than the USA to CO2 levels"

        India and China in particular are furiously developing new nuclear technologies to ensure they DON'T contribute to increasing CO2 levels.

  4. Magani
    Mushroom

    Freedom Gas...

    ...is what you get from eating refried beans.

    Cue Blazing Saddles?

    1. Ian Emery Silver badge

      Re: Freedom Gas...

      I always thought it is what you got from eating freedom fries covered in melted Monterey Jack cheese.

      1. Random Bits of Carrion
        Mushroom

        Re: Freedom Gas...

        Freedom fries covered by American "cheese food"

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Freedom Gas...

      setting the gas "free" can be entertaining. Sometimes I poot out "shave and a haircut"

      (2 belches for the final cadence)

    3. Mandoscottie

      Re: Freedom Gas...

      for our stateside brethren, Magani is referring to the non-US version of Blazing Saddles.

      we are treated to the campfire scene with lots of bottom burping, deemed too offensive stateside on release :)

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIP9KXdmO0

      1. lowwall

        Re: Freedom Gas...

        The US theatrical release, the VHS, DVD, and streaming releases all include the farting scene. It was only the broadcast TV version (i.e., the US version of the "before the watershed") that was bowdlerized.

        However, and oddly from today's point of view, they left all the racist language in the original TV edit. You might think this showed that the TV execs actually understood the point that Mel Brooks was trying to make, but the reality is the FCC had never found the words to be indecent and so they weren't on the broadcasters' censored lists. I remember that they removed Lily Von Shtupp's surname, apparently in an attempt to render the broadcast safe for impressionable young Yiddish speakers.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Freedom Gas...

          I don't speak Yiddish but I, and I am sure plenty of other people, know what schtupping is.

          1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

        2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Freedom Gas...

          How many here remember watching this in the movie theater?

          That's a little before my time. But I do remember renting the VHS tape of it.

          1. lowwall

            Re: Freedom Gas...

            When Gene Wilder died in 2016, they did a short re-release of Blazing Saddles in major US cities. I took my then 7-year-old son to see it after a lengthy explanation of satire and the history of US race relations. The latter of which, having grown up in Chicago, he was not fully unaware.

            After all that, he still liked it. Especially Mongo and the fart jokes.

  5. hplasm Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Oh-

    Freedomming Hell Heck!

  6. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

    They've been huffing the by-products again.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Also...

    My personal favourite to come out of this campaign.

    “Seventy-five years after liberating Europe from Nazi Germany occupation, the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent,” the energy secretary said earlier this month SOURCE: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/29/energy-department-molecules-freedom-fossil-fuel-rebranding

    1. nematoad Silver badge

      Re: Also...

      "“Seventy-five years after liberating Europe from Nazi Germany occupation, the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent,”

      Yes wasn't it nice of the US to let the likes of the UK and Commonwealth, the Soviet Union and China in on the war.

      They didn't win it all by themselves. A lot of Allied troops and civilians died trying to do that before December 1941.

      1. Caltharian

        Re: Also...

        Not to mention the US made a pretty penny from arms dealing and loans that some countries have only just paid off, but america likes to gloss over that part and the fact that any other country had a hand in defeating the axis forces

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Also...

          Yes, they charge for their services.

          America was basically the "hired help" who only bothered to get a job because of Perl Harbour

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Also...

            "America was basically the "hired help" who only bothered to get a job because of Perl Harbour"

            That and Germany declared war on them.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Also...

        Europe was liberated from the Nazis by the Soviet Union with American supplies and logistic support.

        The war in the West was a sideshow.

        And if the Germans prevail, European gas supplies will mostly come from the former Soviet Union, and the US supplies will be a sideshow.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
          Boffin

          @Voyna ... Re: Also...

          Wow... you really don't know your history.

          North Africa?

          Casablanca Conference ring a bell?

          (Ok unless you're a history buff / nerd, probably not.)

      3. TimMaher Bronze badge
        Meh

        Re: Also...

        Perhaps we ought to remember that the Third Reich declared war on the United States. Not the other way around.

        1. Kiwi Silver badge

          Re: Also...

          Perhaps we ought to remember that the Third Reich declared war on the United States.

          But the US didn't seem to be interested in doing much about it until fighting the Germans became rather popular.

          Like usual, the rest of us were doing it for a while before they came along. They the come in and try to act as if they'd been the first to do it.

      4. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
        Boffin

        @nematoad ... Re: Also...

        I really don't think you want to talk about the world history from the 1930's on...

        The US was in a bit of an isolationist mood because they got sucked in to the first world war (great war) and then the ensuing depression.

        Yet there were US citizens already in the thick of things long before 1941.

        Can you say Flying Tigers?

        Or in Spain? (All though... those fighters were considered Communists at the time... )

        1. nematoad Silver badge

          Re: @nematoad ... Also...

          "Can you say Flying Tigers?"

          Yes I can. I can also say that the Flying Tigers were mercenaries in the employ of the Nationalist Chinese government.

          Look, there were some US citizens actively engaged before 1941. The 3 RAF Eagle squadrons come to mind, but my point was that the US has always talked and acted as if nothing really happened until after Pearl Harbor. Quite apart from the fact that as other here have said the Soviet Union played a huge part in bleeding the Third Reich to death.

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: @nematoad ... Also...

            "the US has always talked and acted as if nothing really happened until after Pearl Harbor."

            And up to that point many in the US were talking about coming on the side of the NAZIs

            Even during the war, people like Hollerith (IBM) were actively assisting them and selling them hardware so that they could carry on with their extermination policies.

      5. Spanners Silver badge
        Pirate

        Re: Also...

        A lot of Allied troops and civilians died trying to do that before December 1941.

        I am reminded of a Dad's Army episode where Sergeant Wilson said to a US squaddie that his country had missed 3/4 of WWI and the first few years of WWII and so were they then going to start the next one?

        1. TheRealRoland
          Coat

          Re: Also...

          "I'm going to tell Mum!"

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      Re: Also...

      I was a bit unhappy about the 'freedom fries' thing [I think it was mostly Demo[n,c][r,R]ats resopnsible for that one]. I thought there was way too much irritating slogan-ing going on out there and France has been an ally of the USA since its beginning.

      However, the availability of energy IS a form of freedom, particularly freedom of movement. So there's at least some truth in that argument...

      [I honestly think this whole attack on CO2, and all of the proposed "solutions" for reducing it, are a way of preventing people from moving about freely, keeping us in our places where we can be more easily controlled, keep the classes separated by a wider gap, make us more reliant on government services to keep the politicians in power, and so on, seriously]

      1. Rich 11 Silver badge

        Re: Also...

        [I think it was mostly Demo[n,c][r,R]ats resopnsible for that one]

        Perhaps you could provide evidence which demonstrates that it wasn't the Republican Chair of the Committee on House Administration who ordered the Congressional cafeterias to make that change to their menus. Maybe there was more being said and done within the US at that time but this was the story which went international, to considerable ridicule.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Also...

          It was only fast food - it wasn't like they renamed their royal family

          1. Rich 11 Silver badge

            Re: Also...

            The royal family. So inbred there are corgis with a club foot and weak chin. No wonder Diana decided to add a bit of fresh blood to the gene pool after seeing how her first sprog had turned out.

          2. Kiwi Silver badge
            Trollface

            Re: Also...

            It was only fast food - it wasn't like they renamed their royal family

            Have you seen the size of the average Yank???? "Fast food" is their 'royal family' - and even their god!

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Also...

        "[I think it was mostly Demo[n,c][r,R]ats resopnsible for that one]."

        Maybe you should have read the helpfully provided sidebar on Freedom Fries right next to the main article.

        1. Mark C 2

          Re: Bob...

          Bob, if you are gong to argue against the entire population of the World's Climate Scientists then you need to have a strong argument and your research, otherwise you will look like you are bringing a knife to a gun fight. That source you quote for your Climate Science data is a guy with an MSc in yeast.

          http://nov79.com/about4.html

          An MSc studying an unusual yeast does not make him an expert in Climate Science, or yeast.

          You do not appear to understand the scientific method and look for facts to confirm your bias from highly dubious sources.

          FAIL - Recommend some basic science education and close supervision.

          1. Kiwi Silver badge

            Re: Bob...

            if you are gong to argue against the entire population of the World's Climate Scientists

            Er, no. A rather large number of 'climate scientists' are NOT on the side of 'AGW'.

            Spend a few minutes looking around.

      3. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Also...

        > I honestly think this whole attack on CO2, and all of the proposed "solutions" for reducing it, are a way of preventing people from moving about freely

        It was a republican - Nixon - who killed further development on a nuclear system which was proven immune to the incidents which have plagued the tea-kettle (water-moderated) designs since their inception - well after they'd already been proven to be substantially safer (actually "intrinsically safe") under a number of test scenarios which had already resulted in accidents that had killed people during the 1950s. The MSR designs either shut down, didn't react, or climbed slightly above peak power and then settled back down again, rather than running away or going prompt critical.

  8. Alistair Silver badge
    Windows

    American slavery corporate politics

    When corporate influence on public office exceeds the input of the public, there is only one result. Corporate mandates are to make money for the shareholders first, executive second and everything else is subject to slash and burn beancounterism. When petrochemical companies are run this way it is very much damn the torpedoes and full flame ahead. (no steam here, unless you're burning coal).

    And Trump has always wanted the level of wealth that the Koch family leverages. Even if he's lost the equivalent of the K's pocket change two or three times.

    1. John Savard Silver badge

      Re: American slavery corporate politics

      Unfortunately, even if the Russians lend him a lot of money, does he really have the business acumen to multiply that into what the Koch family has? Instead of just going bankrupt again.

    2. Esme

      Re: American slavery corporate politics

      Yeah and that's the problem - the US has the best government that money can buy. Sheesh..

  9. Chris G Silver badge

    I can imagine some of these clowns standing neck deep in seawater where there used to be dry land, and insisting ' it's only temporary/the Russians did it/ Huawei is responsible/ it wasn't us/ god is bringing back the flood to punish everyone for not buying American.

    Delete accordingly or apply all.

    Edited to add: It is not only Americans to blame there are idiots all over the world who want to deny humanity's role in exacerbating climate change and polluting the planet in preference for some short term profit.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Don't worry they will all be dead from measles, sorry "freedom spots"

      1. hplasm Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        "freedom spots"

        +1 Internet

  10. M. Poolman

    ScyFy?

    This surely isn't really a thing is it?

    1. Blank Reg

      Re: ScyFy?

      https://www.syfy.com/

      1. M. Poolman

        Re: ScyFy?

        I wish I hadn't asked now!

      2. Excellentsword (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: Re: ScyFy?

        Oops wayward C in article. Thanks.

        1. Huw D Silver badge

          Re: ScyFy?

          It's the wayward sea... especially if it rises.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Freedom gas needs big ships

    The US is forcing (with threats) European countries to buy its fracking-extracted sea-transported gas rather than the Russian stuff which needs no fracking and comes down a pipeline. You don't need to be a genius to work out that the US stuff produces more total CO2 that Communist Unfreedom Gas, even though it has only red quarks rather than red, white and blue ones.

    1. Ben1892

      Re: Freedom gas needs big ships

      Exactly, turns out all that liberty fracking has created a glut on their market and a re-brand is needed to differentiate from the communist gas from the east.

      I'm sure we built the LNG terminal at Milford Haven for strategic reasons last time the Russians started talking about turning off the supply in winter - trouble is we've already got a cheap supply from the Middle East.

      Seriously though, WTF with calling it freedom gas ??? I really had to check the date to make sure I wasn't being trolled and just shows how far out of reality the US is.

    2. Luke Worm

      Re: Freedom gas needs big ships

      Communist? That's a long time ago. Nowadays they are more like extreme right.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Freedom gas needs big ships

        Two sides of the same medal - you get the KGB colonel - which I'm sure shown his true communist soul to climb the ranks when it was needed - turned into the right-wing and orthodox-church defender leader.... and he's not the first to change as needed to get and maintain power.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Freedom gas needs big ships

          Or the hyper capitalist real estate tycoon whose money all came from his father's receipt of government housing grants and is now borrowing money to pay farmers - funny old world

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Freedom gas needs big ships

        ---->whoosh.

    3. rcxb Bronze badge

      Re: Freedom gas needs big ships

      More importantly than emissions, having two suppliers is a hedge against either forcing political alignment (on any particular issue) by European nations that have inadequate domestic energy supplies.

  12. sabroni Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Can a president...

    ...jump the shark?

    1. BebopWeBop Silver badge
      Windows

      Re: Can a president...

      Funny though if he missed his footing and only got half way

  13. Antron Argaiv Silver badge

    Surely we'll wake up from this nightmare in 3... 2... ®

    ...about 18 months, if we're lucky.

  14. ukgnome

    In other news - Sunlight should now be referred to as Freedom Photons

    *not my words, credit goes to th3j35t3r

    1. jonathan keith
      Mushroom

      Not when it's trying to do honest American fossil-fuel-workers out of jobs, it shouldn't!

  15. BigSLitleP Silver badge

    Can someone tell me how.....

    ....we can turn America off and back on again? There seems to be a few glitches piling up in their system, a reboot may be required.

    1. joeW Silver badge

      Re: Can someone tell me how.....

      The way they're going, I'd say just wait a few years.

    2. Chris G Silver badge

      Re: Can someone tell me how.....

      System reboot?

      I think a large part of the World is infected with trojans and root kits, we need some seriously powerful anti malware.

      1. My other car WAS an IAV Stryker

        Re: Can someone tell me how.....

        My real/legal last name starts with "Mal"... If you run anti-*mal*ware, my family and I might disappear!

        Can you all at least eliminate *mal*nutrition while you're at it? This country and neighbors are definitely suffering!

    3. Jemma Silver badge

      Re: Can someone tell me how.....

      A couple of hundred pallets of Novichok, stainless steel glass lined spray gear, noddy suits, a few A400M spray planes and a really wide interpretation of the phrase "omelettes and eggs" should do the job admirably.

      *fires up eBay*

      Can get everything else - just need the loopy* juice.

      *more accurately the twitchy, dribbly, convulsey, pissy & die-ey juice.

      But quite honestly it doesn't matter. We're done. If we're not fucking up the environment we're fucking up our genetic diversity and resilience. The last human will die at the age of 93 sitting in a plastic chair watching Hollyoaks DVDs - so much for intelligent life.

      1. Dr. G. Freeman
        Joke

        Re: Can someone tell me how.....

        I'll ask my colleague, who has skills at biological weapons; probably have to pay him in food for his husky

        Nick's knack at Novichok gives his dog a bone.

        1. Insert sadsack pun here

          Re: Can someone tell me how.....

          "Nick's knack at Novichok gives his dog a bone"

          Take my upvote and get outta here, you monster

    4. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

      Re: Can someone tell me how.....

      Percussive maintenance?

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I remember a comment from my youth..

    .. which fell out of common usage but needs to be brought back.

    Stop the world, I want to get off!

  17. devTrail

    small relief

    At least this time the hypocrisy of the label didn't go unnoticed. In the battle for the market share against coal they managed to sell it as a clean source of energy and hide the fact that the actual improvement from the environmental point of view is quite small. On all the western media not a single person dared to challenge the official line. To quote the Americans themselves I can write that when everybody thinks the same nobody is thinking very much.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: small relief

      I am away from home without my textbooks but IIRC methane produces about 30% less carbon dioxide for a given energy output than does coal, and that's before you add in scrubbers, additional maintenance and waste disposal.

      1. devTrail

        Re: small relief

        When someone tries to explain the things the best way to counter it is going back to the style of blunt statements that oversimplify and get rid of the differences and the details.

  18. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

    Dubious re-branding?

    the US is the undisputed king of dubious rebranding exercises.

    Never forget "Windscale is now Sellafield". The UK government is up there with the best.

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Dubious re-branding?

      At least they have not re-branded radiation leaks as "magic moonbeams" or similar.

      Sh*t, I just gave them an idea...

    2. Mr Commenty McComentface
      Pirate

      Re: Dubious re-branding?

      >>Never forget "Windscale is now Sellafield". The UK government is up there with the best.

      Er, sorry, Windscale and Sellafield were different sites, for difference purposes, run by different entities (while still being the same place). Not really rebranding.

      Windscale - the original "generation" site run by UKAEA (then AEA Technology)

      Sellafield - Reprocessing etc run by BNFL.

      There was a third section to site called Calder Hall.

      Pirates, because , well, BNFL.

  19. Winkypop Silver badge
    Stop

    Stop!

    Just stop trying to make everyone as stupid as Trump Republicans are!

  20. codejunky Silver badge

    Good on them

    Not that I would expect the walking vacuums to realise it but exporting fracked gas is a good thing. First gas is less Co2 outputting than oil and coal and thanks to fracking we have more of it available which reduces prices. Second there was that little issue of lefties wetting the beds because of Ruskies getting Trump elected or some other tripe, so this reduces Europe's dependence on gas from over there!

    And while people laugh at 'freedom gas' (it is funny) there has been more than a few laughs at the monuments to a sky god and at least LNG works. There are plenty reasons to complain about Trump but undoing some of Obama's worst mistakes is not a bad thing.

    So now for the MMCC Co2 believers to rejoice as there is less need to depend on the more Co2 outputting fossil fuels...

    1. devTrail

      Re: Good on them

      In my country in the last thirty years electric household water heaters were gradually replaced with gas heaters. It was a change driven by the electricity price, but the absurd things is that everybody think that the change had no environmental impact, nobody wants to understand that thousands of small heaters are worse than an industrial scale power plant even if it is coal fired. Yes coal is solid and burns with more difficulty than gas, but this is true for equivalent boilers. An industrial high temperature boiler with forced air inflow releases much less unburnt hydrocarbons than the small household boilers, the same is true for the NOx. Furthermore most of the filters of the household boilers are poorly maintained, even calling the technician every year for the regular maintenance doesn't help since most of them do almost nothing. Even the CO2 comparison is not so bad, industrial scale boilers are designed to recover and reuse as much heat as possible, that is not true for the small household heater.

      So the blunt statement: First gas is less Co2 outputting than oil and coal is a misleading oversimplification.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Good on them

        @devTrail

        "So the blunt statement: First gas is less Co2 outputting than oil and coal is a misleading oversimplification."

        Yes but then the MMCC Co2 argument is a misleading oversimplification. Yes things can be inefficiently burnt and the NOx problems have generally come about by trying to reduce the Co2 output. But since coal plants are being shut down and electricity prices jump as we build monuments to sky gods where do we get the electricity from? A lot of problems have been caused by this devotion to MMCC Co2 theory but it hasnt really improved much for anyone.

      2. Paul Crawford Silver badge

        Re: Good on them

        Replacing electric heaters with gas ones is not bad if your electricity source(s) are predominantly fossil fuel, as even a typical large-scale generator (without heat reuse in a cogeneration manner) is only 40%-ish efficient and then you lose another couple of percent in the distribution network, whereas a gas *heater* (or boiler) is typically 80%+ efficient. Of course if the majority of your electricity is from renewable/nuclear it is a different story.

        I seem to remember some news about Germany shutting down nuclear plants to be "Green" and then importing electric from neighbours generate largely from Russian gas...or am I misremembering?

        1. devTrail

          Re: Good on them

          whereas a gas *heater* (or boiler) is typically 80%+ efficient.

          LOL I want to see the scientific data on this statement.

          1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

            Re: Good on them

            A moments web search:

            https://www.usboiler.net/high-efficiency-condensing-gas-boiler-best-choice-home.html

            "For example, a 30-year old boiler might be 70% efficient, meaning that for every dollar you spend on gas, 30 cents of heat escapes through the chimney or vent pipe. In comparison, a condensing boiler may provide up to 96% efficiency"

            https://www.energystar.gov/products/most_efficient/boilers

            Notice the AFUE values of 95%?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_fuel_utilization_efficiency

            1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Re: Jumping Jack Flash..

              "For example, a 30-year old boiler might be 70% efficient, meaning that for every dollar you spend on gas, 30 cents of heat escapes through the chimney or vent pipe. In comparison, a condensing boiler may provide up to 96% efficiency"

              Or for the UK, soon to be 0%. Or negative. See the latest from the idiocracy-

              https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48467462

              Leading climate scientists have called for Theresa May to make her "legacy" a target to cut greenhouse gases to zero by 2050.

              Mind you, one of those leading scientists still tries to live down an 11C prediction made by his crowd-sourced climate model. Luckily, climate models are far more variable than reality. But sadly, some idiots listen to these experts. Like the BBC, who's 'science' correspondents have no scientific background, but can virtue signal like the world's greatest.

              But I digress. Cutting greenhouse (aka CO2) emissions doesn't mean they're all going to hold their breath to save the planet-

              Meeting this target would mean stopping all emissions from electricity generation, transport and heating, while offsetting pollution from areas like aviation using measures to capture carbon, such as planting trees, the committee said.

              The amazing Mr Ed (Milliband) took advice from Bryony Worthington (FoE, EngLit) in creating the UK's Climate Change Act, which still has the record of being the most ruinously expensive bit of legislation in UK history.. Which already requires UK households to surrender their gas heating & cooking so they can be replaced with clean, green electric heating.. Possibly supplied by Drax, which burns forests! How Green!

              So sadly for the US, we won't be wanting their 'freedom gas' because we're committed to getting rid of it... Unless we repeal the CCA.

              1. Alan Brown Silver badge

                Re: Jumping Jack Flash..

                "Meeting this target would mean stopping all emissions from electricity generation, transport and heating"

                Which will increase electrical production requirements by a factor of AT LEAST three - whilst if you pull all the stops out, carpet the country and surrounding seas in windkills and pave all rooftops in solar, renewables can only slightly outproduce existing carbon-sourced production at best (right now renewables are down around the nuclear baseload level)

                How much powdered magic unicorn horn will need to be sprinkled over renewables to get 400% more energy out of them than is available to be extracted?

            2. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: Good on them

              Those old boilers also emit significant amounts of NOX (there weren't NOX emission standards on boilers until 2004, but condensing boilers put out almost none anyway)

              The significance of THAT is that around 60% of inner London NOX is now traceable to older boilers. The same applies to most other cities.

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Good on them

          "I seem to remember some news about Germany shutting down nuclear plants to be "Green" and then importing electric from neighbours generate largely from Russian gas...or am I misremembering?"

          Very close. They found cracks in some reactor vessels and decided to shut the whole fleet down due to green pressure rather than take half offline at the same time for maintenance. The imported electricity was bought from Poland, who are/were using "brown" coal, a high sulphur content "dirty" coal.

        3. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Good on them

          @Paul Crawford

          "I seem to remember some news about Germany shutting down nuclear plants to be "Green" and then importing electric from neighbours generate largely from Russian gas...or am I misremembering?"

          From what I recall Germany subsidised green energy which became a problem when actual generation was cut for being too expensive so Germany imported from neighbours and also subsidises fossil fuel so the lights stay on.

          The nuclear plants were shut off because they wet themselves after fukushima so as a result started burning the most polluting of coal to make up the shortfall.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Good on them

            Update: https://continentaltelegraph.com/environment/of-course-germany-should-keep-the-nuclear-plants-what-you-want-to-burn-coal/

        4. John Savard Silver badge

          Re: Good on them

          But a coal-fired electrical generation plant can be shut down and replaced with a nuclear power plant. Without everyone having to go out and buy a new hot water heater, if those heaters are electric. So electric hot water heaters in all cases lend themselves better to eliminationg carbon dioxide emissions.

          1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

            Re: @John Savard

            If you quickly get to > 60% of your energy without fossil fuel then yes, but that is not looking likely for many.

            Also electric *heaters* are not that great (due to the poor conversion from original heat in fossil fueled cases) but electrically driven heat pumps are a good idea, providing you have the necessary low-grade heat source for it (e.g. buried pipe, or enough garden area and noise tolerance for air sourced ones).

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: @John Savard

              "Also electric *heaters* are not that great (due to the poor conversion from original heat in fossil fueled cases)"

              And not forgetting the transmission losses across a national electricity network. There's almost no loss in the gas network.

            2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Re: @John Savard

              Also electric *heaters* are not that great (due to the poor conversion from original heat in fossil fueled cases) but electrically driven heat pumps are a good idea, providing you have the necessary low-grade heat source for it (e.g. buried pipe, or enough garden area and noise tolerance for air sourced ones).

              Actually, they are great. Which is one of those political/economic mysteries around the whole 'renewable' lobby.

              So waaay back in the UK's past, we built a bunch of nuclear kettles to heat water, make steam, drive turbines and produce electricity (ok, and enrich fuel). But reactors like running at peak efficiency, which meant the UK needed a way to soak up off-peak power. Enter 'Economy 7' storage heaters, controlled by a cheap radio switch. Radiators were simple bricks & heating elements, water heating, simple water tanks and heating elements.

              Then we hit the 21st Century, and 'renewables', with all their intermittency. So a bit of the opposite problem to Economy 7, but for some reason, lobbyists seem determined to promote ruinously expensive alternative solutions.. Lke gridscale batteries, and dumb 'smart meters'. And even though an Economy 7-style storage system is very cheap, it's not regarded as 'green'. Providing there's space for a tank of water and a <$20 heating element, we can fit UK houses with water heaters that are far cheaper than gas, and meet our decabonisation targets. Plus with a smarter teleswitch that can address blocks of heating elements, have a cheaper way to balance the grid.

              Problem of course is the wrong people won't profit from simple solutions, so they instead want billions handed to them to add more costs to electricity consumers.

      3. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Good on them

        "nobody wants to understand that thousands of small heaters are worse than an industrial scale power plant even if it is coal fired. "

        When it comes to heating:

        You're converting heat to electricity (best case thermal efficiency around 40-45%), transmitting it along wires (losses of 10% or so) and then turning it back into heat

        For this case, local gas heating is more efficient.

        For heat _engines_, larger (and hotter) is usually more efficient

  21. shodanbo

    An empty house is better than a bad tenant!

    Last time I was in London I admittedly spread some "Freedom Gas" around. The Buffalo Vindaloo was excellent though! [BURP]

    Sorry London :-)

    1. Rich 11 Silver badge

      Re: An empty house is better than a bad tenant!

      Cor blimey, strike a light...

      NO!!!

  22. c1ue

    I can't decide between laughing or crying.

    LNG exports are good - freedom gas - but Russian natural gas via Nord Stream 2 is different?

  23. Derezed
    Flame

    Isn't free

    Freedom gas isn't free...no there's a hefty firkin fee...and if you don't throw in your buck 'o five who wiiiiiiill? Freedom gas isn't free...it costs folks like YOU and ME...freedom gas costs a buck o fiiiiiiiive....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Isn't free

      Gas, grass, or ass, nobody rides for free.

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Isn't free

      "Freedom gas isn't free...no there's a hefty firkin fee...and if you don't throw in your buck 'o five who wiiiiiiill? Freedom gas isn't free...it costs folks like YOU and ME...freedom gas costs a buck o fiiiiiiiive...."

      Did anyone tell Sid?

  24. chivo243 Silver badge
    Facepalm

    embarrassed is an understatement

    I didn't know embarrassment had so many levels. I'll let you know when I've plumbed them all. I'm glad twitter has a full history of the crap done during this presidency, the next presidency hopefully will use it as an "undo" list.

  25. MJI Silver badge
    Mushroom

    My gas just reached freedom.

    A bit noisy but I can't smell it.

    I wonder if it would burn though?

  26. GX5000
    Facepalm

    How much more can we take?

    Clown World Headlines...

    Freedom Gas.

    Fight Racism by blocking White students from Class.

    Theresa May was a Great PM.

    Reparations.

    Fascism on the rise by NotSeez.

    Can't take much more of this Double Plus crap.

  27. User McUser
    Facepalm

    I'm convinced...

    That we are definitely living in the dumbest of all possible realities.

  28. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

    “Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. and yet... and yet you act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there is some... some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.”

    ― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

    Would appear the Yanks have managed to find freedom though.

  29. JLV Silver badge

    One wonders if these rather childish antics, and the voting patterns they correlate to, are caused by emotional reactions to gradual decline. Or whether they cause/accelerate that decline:

    The US is losing influence in the world, while China’s is rising. That’s not necessarily benign, China has yet to prove it will not be a noxious superpower when it gets there. Developing countries are doing just that and Western countries are becoming less uniquely prosperous.

    What largely built the US, oil, is fast becoming toxic, even as fracking has made it domestically cheaper.

    The kind of dimwit older white voters (with whom I share ethnicity and sadly aging) who support these morons are also seeing a world and country in which they matter even less (Brexit parallels? a-plenty).

    So, instead of realistic assessments on how to adjust and which of their country’s, many, strengths to play to, you get a bunch of Archie Bunkers, led by a POTUS who makes Archie look like Einstein, engage in this pathetic parody of Idiocracy.

    These are NOT the people who checkmated the USSR, just like Lord Byron was unimpressed with 19th century Greeks. Hopefully more dynamic US citizens can prevail and next election can turf this crew out, without going all AOC.

    “America? Fuck, yeah,”

  30. Dan 55 Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Who's not seen Idiocracy yet?

    Well you don't need to because it's Idiocracy live and direct every fucking day now.

    1. Esme

      Re: Who's not seen Idiocracy yet?

      Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2156/

  31. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
    Flame

    Sooo...

    Germany is currently buying their natural gas from Russia. they desperately need this, since they shut down their nuclear plants and have gaps in their electric grid. Perhaps the UK education system has forgotten post 1944 Foreign policy starting with the Casablanca Conference, leading to Potsdam and then post war and then the cold war. Quite a bit of history that shaped the following 50+ years.

    Now I can get the mocking of the branding. Its silly.

    But it exists to serve a point.

    I'm sorry, but perhaps El Reg should stick to technology news. Clearly the 'journalist' who wrote this article should go back to school and learn a new trade.

    1. devTrail

      Re: Sooo...

      Are you stating that there is any difference between the US and Russia?

      1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
        Boffin

        @devTrail ... Re: Sooo...

        If you have to ask...

        Obama blundered in Syria, massively letting Russia and then Iran back a dictator who kills his own people using WMDs.

        The whole Ukraine thing?

        Yeah... There's a difference.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. John Savard Silver badge

      Re: Sooo...

      Shutting down their nuclear plants, and spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from natural gas used to replace them? Are they crazy in Germany? I thought Germany was supposed to be on track to becoming carbon free without nuclear, but I see the National Geographic was just pulling our legs.

  32. martinusher Silver badge

    Wrong source

    I'm 'merkan and I hadn't heard of 'Freedom Gas' until the news reports. I believe its a form of methane but from the origins of the term I'd guess that it has a biological origin than a product of a gas well.

    Since we're obviously in an early 2000s timewarp I should warn you that Bolton has proof that the Iranians were behind the recent sabotage of some oil tankers in the Gulf. He will producing it shortly and it will probably be in a little vial that he'll produce mid-speech. Since Bolton was a prime mover behind the Iraq war, he was advocating for it back in the 90s but wasn't able to get traction until Dubya provided a suitable host, his machinations shouldn't be dismissed as ravings -- he wants a war and will stop at nothing until he gets one. (...and, unfortunately, when it comes to foreign policy Trump makes Dubya look like a genius.)

    The only thing that will save us, and the world, this time around is that I don't think our economy can stand another war so the only way Bolton is going to get his way is a 'shock and awe' type air campaign. Common sense would suggest that the Iranians know this and have taken appropriate precautions. As for the rest of us, we're trying to run the clock out, hanging on in the hope that a change of administration will "Make America Sane Again".

    1. JLV Silver badge

      Re: Wrong source

      Bolton is a wonderful example of a chickenhawk. Look at his Vietnam War record.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Wrong source

        "Bolton is a wonderful example of a chickenhawk."

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chicken%20hawk

        "slang : a man who pursues boys or young men for sexual purposes"

        There's a 1984 movie on the same topic.

        Given what the meaning you had in mind does to young men, I'd say the intent is about the same.

        1. JLV Silver badge

          Re: Wrong source

          not really.

          A chickenhawk is derogatory political slang for a politician that is a pro war (hawk) but has themselves actively avoided military service (chicken).

          See also: Dick Cheney.

          Both are on the record saying they didn’t want to die in Vietnam for a lost war. Which is a fair statement, true, until you consider their loathsome wish to inflict unnecessary wars on others.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hideo Kojima

    I often wondered if Hideo Kojima was totally insane writing (in the form of games) crazy alternate American history/possible futures. May turn out the reality ends up LESS bazaar.

    Though his more recent outing may be even more off the charts, the real world is still trying it's best to outdo him!

  34. JohnFen Silver badge

    Embarrassing

    Every time I think my government couldn't be more embarrassing, they prove me wrong.

    1. Adrian 4 Silver badge

      Re: Embarrassing

      s/embarrassing/shameful/

      Don't be too hard on yourself. Ours is no better.

  35. TheRealRoland

    I heard the whale song...

    but only snippets here and there, because of the underwater airguns used by the drilling industry to look for more of that freedomgas!

  36. J.G.Harston Silver badge

    "Brits watched the episode in confusion because here the potato-based snack is more commonly known as chips."

    Arghhh!!! No!

    Fries have a cross section of less than about 1/4 inch, and are the constistancy of twigs, chips have a cross section of around 1/2 inch at least, and are internally fluffy and soft.

    You can eat chips with a fork, you cannot eat fries with a fork.

    1. Adrian 4 Silver badge

      To be fair, it doesn't really matter what you eat fries with. They'll never be worth the bother.

      We've unfortunately lost proper chips along the way too. Yes, they should be soft and fluffy inside ( unlike fries which are intended to have the interior completely burnt away). But if cooked in beef dripping, soaked in vinegar and steamed in a newspaper covering for a few minutes the outside is soft too. Food of the gods.

      Am I making you hungry ?

    2. John Savard Silver badge

      Well, since you can eat what the Americans call French Fries with a fork, that proves the Register was right, and they are called chips by the British.

    3. JohnFen Silver badge

      "you cannot eat fries with a fork."

      Oh yes you can. I've seen people doing exactly that every so often for my entire life.

  37. TheMeerkat

    The political campaigning of The Register gets really annoying. Can you stay out of it?

    I am reading you for IT related news, if I fancied a bit of Trump bashing, I would read Guardian.

  38. Jedit
    Mushroom

    Correction of article information

    This article claims that molecules of American Freedom are found in natural gas. But as we all know, molecules of American Freedom are actually found in lead. They must be, because the US armed forces export lead at high speed and in large quantities to all manner of foreign countries that they think are in need of freedom.

    1. JohnFen Silver badge

      Re: Correction of article information

      Don't forget about Freedom Depleted Uranium!

    2. Kiwi Silver badge

      Re: Correction of article information

      But as we all know, molecules of American Freedom are actually found in lead. They must be, because the US armed forces export lead at high speed and in large quantities to all manner of foreign countries that they think are in need of freedom.

      Reminds me, Mars has Oil and needs some FREEDOM!

  39. karlkarl Bronze badge

    But don't worry guys, so long as us plebs keep paying for bags and avoid using a straw when we manage to scrape together enough pennies to eat at a restaurant, the planet will live!

    1. Kiwi Silver badge

      But don't worry guys, so long as us plebs keep paying for bags and avoid using a straw when we manage to scrape together enough pennies to eat at a restaurant, the planet will live!

      A former friend recently treated me to a 'proper barista-made coffee'. A rather disgusting fluid that left me longing for the nearest instant I could find, no matter how cheap, hence the "former" friend.

      However, I wasn't too interested in the vile fluid that dares to try to carry the name "coffee". What I was interested in was the comestible paper cup, the not bad straws in a container on the table - also made of compostable substance though still feeling a little card-y, but the thing that got my attention was the plastic lid. A fully compostable plastic.

      I've also been coming across these in courier bags and other things - "eco bags" that are (I hope) fully compostable. If this stuff is not too bad, they why are we not seeing so much more of it? All those wonderful and very useful supermarket bags for a start - instead of getting rid of them (in favour of stuff that's reputedly far worse for the planet!) we could've had compostable plastics made from plant material.

      We can be doing so much better to look after our planet!

      (PS, the bags don't seem to take very long at all to break down - the most recent to go into my compost heap was a little over a month ago and when I gave it some stirring yesterday there was no sign of the remains of the bag)

  40. Carl Pearson

    What's In A Name

    A little history inspired by the first paragraph of this piece.

    Science Fiction's Hugo award, voted on by attendees of the annual World Science Fiction Convention (as opposed to the Nebula, which is voted on by members of SWFA, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, a U.S.-based though global organization), was named after Hugo Gernsback, a Luxembourg native who emigrated to the States, early 20th century magazine editor, avid lover of science and all things gadget, and huge radio buff. (His radio station WRNY was the second to broadcast a TV signal to the public, in 1928, from the station's home in New York.)

    Common lore is that he was the one who coined the phrase "Hi-Fi", a shortening of Hi-Fidelity, though it is difficult to track down the veracity of that claim.

    What is know, though, is that in the early 50's, Forrest J. Ackerman, renowned science fiction fan, agent, and all around great guy (we called him "Uncle Forrey") coined the phrase "Sci-Fi" as an homage to Gernsback. (In 1953, Ackerman became the only recipient of a Hugo award in the category of "#1 Fan Personality".)

    The phrase caught on, though many hard-core science fiction folk prefer to see it spelled and pronounced "skiffy".

    He was also a devotee of Esperanto, so "bonan togan" to all who read this!

    1. JLV Silver badge

      Re: What's In A Name

      Aha, hence Gibson’s Gernsback Continuum short story?

  41. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    meanwhile

    UK.gov and Holyrood.Scot promote a massive increase in burning air quality destroying wood and biomass as they are "carbon neutral" a very dubious claim that also ignores NOx, SO2, CO, PM10, PM2.5 etc emissions.

    Michael "Environment comes first" Gove has stated that there "will be no restriction on the installation or use of wood stoves"

    Nicky "Climate emergency despte 0.15% of global emissions" Sturgeon - We accept the report we paid for and will transition 20% of agricultural land to forestry and biomass to meet climate change targets and be net zero carbon neutral by 2045" (buzzword bingo there, along with kowtowing to XR and thus encouraging any rabble to cause mayhem and disruption to the populace to get their own way and she's only getting away with it as the rest of the parties bar the tories are downing the green Kool-aid as fast as she is and attempting to out-green each the green party, and the tories are seen as toxic north of the border due to their bickering over brexit and their utter lack of policies bar "get rid of nippy sweetie")

  42. Martin-73 Silver badge

    And now, for something completely different.

    Is it just me, or is anyone else sat here, looking at the news, and thinking we're all in a bloody python sketch (no, not the programming language, although come to think of it...), and waiting for Mr Cleese to announce that the surrealism is over, and is now going to be replaced with something even more preposterous?

  43. Claverhouse Silver badge

    The red, white and blue backslapping followed the expansion of a plant in Quintana, Texas,

    Actually, quite a lot of energy plants in Texas undergo sudden expansions,

  44. Kiwi Silver badge
    Pint

    "...and yet we haven't seen the "runaway global warming", we haven't seen the massive sea level rises, we haven't seen squat."

    Nice straw man you burnt there!

    None of the mainstream predictions eg UN official IPCC ones, say that runaway global warming, massive sea level rises etc are happening now. What they say is that these things will happen within the next 30-50 years if we don't change drastically reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.

    One of us may not know the definition of "straw man" :)

    Tell me, what were the time frames of Al Gore's predictions in "Inconvenient Truth"? Was that not 'mainstream' - after all it was played in all the movie theatres and constantly played at schools for some time.

    Didn't he claim that "within a decade" the sea levels would rise by some 6 metres? Well, I live in a coastal city and have ready access to several other areas along hundreds of miles of coastline. Coastline I've been familiar with for the >40 years I've lived on this planet. I can verify that sea levels haven't risen by as much as 6 millimetres in that time, let alone the amounts Gore was claiming.

    And there was the famous "hockey stick" graph that predicted global warming on a rapidly increasing scale back sometime around 1999 IIRC. That was showing what, a 10+ deg rise by 2015 or thereabouts? Or was it 15deg by 2005? That seemed to get pretty much "mainstream" acceptance as well.

    Like 'cold fusion' and 'peak oil', this stuff is perpetually '20-50 years away'. I'm picking on what we were being told 20 years ago. Really bad stuff should've happened by now. It hasn't. That makes it hard to believe the "it's going to be even worse!" warnings for 20 years from now.

    What we ARE seeing is reduction in (Ant)arctic ice, retreating glaciers, higher frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

    The reading I've done suggests otherwise in most of those things. As to ice, well there is "They found a previously unmapped geological boundary was making the sea floor much deeper on one side, affecting the way the ocean water circulates under the ice shelf." from the article at https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/05/new-zealand-monitoring-possible-3-5m-antarctic-sea-level-rise.html - but note that I view New Hub as only marginally more trustworthy than most of NZ's news media.

    Note that the GNS claim isn't "man made global warming causing the melt" but 'changes to the sea floor (caused by geological events) are changing the current flows around Antarctica, and that is causing changes to the ice sheets'.

    https://www.futurity.org/antarcticas-ice-sheet-earth-rising-1793072/ could also be an interesting read.

    But the number and intensity of hurricanes for the past century is well known and relatively much easier to record and quantify. And the last 30 years has seen a significant increase.

    The stuff I've seen from searches (using phrases like "hurricane intensity last 20 years" suggests otherwise. I admit it's hard to find unbiased information from either side though :( I'd love to locate just simple raw numbers, not fudged, "corrected", bad numbers tucked away while good numbers highlighted and so forth.

    There is also an alarming trend amongst the press - an example being NZ's 'Stuff' (the name says it all!) who now refuse to allow any question of climate change or other things to be published in their "newspaper". So an article showing a sudden increase in antartic sea ice, or an increase in polar bear numbers would NOT be published by them.

    Incidentally I agree with you that nuclear power stations are much better for the environment than wind turbines, but either of them is significantly better than burning coal.

    Glad to hear it. Yes, I'd much rather we got away from coal. I wonder how effective wind could be used for "pumped-storage" power stations - wind pumping the water from the lower lake to the top when it's available, and the water being used for power when not.

    Since you say you are concerned about pollution (but not necessarily about CO2 emmissions), well, have you been to China where sometimes visibility is a couple of km or less because of smog generated by burning coal? Or ever lived close to a coal-fired power station where anything you clean gets grimy within days, and an abnormally large proportion of kids has asthma?

    I've seen videos of China and other like places. I don't really want to even think about that any more! No wonder so many of them want out!

    NZ doesn't have 'pockets of abnormal asthma'. Asthma was quite normal here at one point. Sadly our damp, mouldy housing alone contributed badly to that, without worrying about coal etc emissions. When I was a lad we still had lots of coal fires in houses and I do recall how in some neighbourhoods it could make washing the linen on a cold but clear day problematic. I do support burning of wood in decent fireplaces, if the ash is also handled well afterwards (ie into compost and back into plants). Of course, the source of the wood is also important! :). I'm of course also for doing a good job on insulating homes. A couple of friends live next door to each other, both houses with the same design built at the same time by the same people. One uses a considerable amount of heating and never seems to get warm, the other always seems warm yet seldom uses the heat pump - often just the heat from the stove is plenty at this time of year (outside air temps between 6 and 15C now). In winter the latter will have the heat pump on most of the time, but it doesn't have to do much work. The simple difference is one place still has the original insulation, the other had new stuff fitted in 2012 or 13 including underfloor insulation.

    Maybe people who are for, against, or neutral to the idea of reducing CO2 emmissions can all come together to support nuclear power, then? (we can tell the bouncer to stop Greenpeace at the door )

    Hell yes!

    I don't doubt the climate shifts for various reasons. I doubt mankind can make much of a difference (although my religious beliefs suggest means but probably best we end that discussion here :) ), but that doesn't give us license to live in a highly polluting way. There's no point worrying about climate change when we're tossing plastics and other gunk into the oceans. There's no point worrying about sea level rises in a couple of hundred years when toxins spewed out the back of our cars will put you into an early grave. And really no point worrying about how cold or warm it is when we process the nutrition out of our food in our mad desire for larger portions and less effort at any cost. Want easy? Rice (or chick peas), tin of diced/crushed tomatoes, some spices, some meat (if desired) and/or other veg, onions and capsicum and other stuff, some water/fluid if needed - all in a pan (you may brown your meat first if desired). Simmer, stirring occasionally - great meal that is better in aroma and taste than anything you'll get from your supermarket, better for you, and quite easy!

    I used to hate vegetables, and used to get sick eating them as well. Then I started growing stuff for someone else and sampled some of my own fare (they wouldn't trust my gardening till I showed them I was willing to eat it!) and, well, it really was a life-changing thing. I no longer get sick from eating them. I don't use any thing other than natural compost (kitchen scraps, weeds, grass clippings (push mower not petrol mower), and seek natural ways to control pests (traps, 'companion planting' and netting). So yes, air and soil quality are extremely important to me as is the local ecology - we've lost the natural enemies of slugs and thus I have a problem keeping slugs in check. I'm planning to find the best (preferably native) species and to try and re-introduce them locally.

    I'm not worried about global warming or climate change. It will, from forces well outside my control. But I am going to do everything I can to keep my environment healthy. Perhaps that's how we need to best target things - forget about the "decades away" and the "big problems" and just teach people to love their local ground and to love their air, and to do what they can to keep those two things healthy. We do that, everybody wins. Every body has a better quality of life. It doesn't take much effort - if a fat lazy slob like me can do it and enjoy it then anyone can!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019